There was some debate in this thread whether 60 fps is a commercially viable option, or just a niche.
Here is the most recent top 20 most played games list on Xbox 360 (based on unique users). These are the most popular games currently, and the list hasn't changed much in the last months.
LIVE Activity for week of May 14th
1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
2. Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition
3. Call of Duty: Black Ops
4. FIFA 12
5. Battlefield 3
6. Halo: Reach
7. Modern Warfare 2
8. NBA 2K12
9. Skyrim
10. Gears of War 3
11. GTA IV
12. Forza Motorsport 4
13. Max Payne 3
14. Trials Evolution
15. Mass Effect 3
16. NHL12
17. Madden NFL 12
18. Halo 3
19. Red Dead Redemption
20. Saints Row: The Third
In total 9 of top 20 most played games are running at 60 fps. Top 4 has only 60 fps games: MW3, Minecraft, Black Ops and FIFA 12. Other 60 fps games are: NBA 2K12 in place 8, Forza 4 in place 12, Trials Evolution in place 14, NHL12 in place 16 and Madden 12 in place 17. When you compare the top 20 list to all games released on Xbox 360, the percentage of 60 fps games is much higher in the top 20 list. Thus we could conclude that 60 fps is a contributor to game's long time success, not just a niche feature.
It is an generally accepted fact that 60 fps is very important for sports games and reaction based games (such as fighting games). However many disregard first person shooters. If you play similar real life shooting games such as Paintball (in closed industrial buildings) or Megazone/Lazerzone (popular in Finland, Sweden and Australia at least), you know that good reaction time is most important thing you need to have in order succeed in these games. I know some hardcore PC players who played Counterstrike competitively, and those players had 120 Hz displays just to get their reaction times down by a few milliseconds. If you shoot your enemy one frame earlier, he cannot shoot back. Simple as that. Reaction time is everything in these games. As all Call of Duty (incl. Modern Warfare) games are 60 fps and are the most popular first person games around, I don't see how a similar game that runs only at 30 fps would survive in a long run. Hardcore players automatically compare all new first person games to COD, and if the new game runs at 30 fps it will feel inprecise, unresponsive and generally not right compared to COD. I wouldn't personally feel comfortable in releasing a competitor for the most successful game series ever, if my game ran at half the frame rate. First person shooters are highly reaction based games after all.
60 fps improves gameplay, but at at cost of some graphics fidelity. Or the other way around: 30 fps improves graphics fidelity, but at the cost of gameplay. For me personally, gameplay always wins over graphics. This might seem a pretty odd statement coming from a graphics engine lead programmer
Sure 24 fps is more cinematic than 60 fps. But the sacrifice in gameplay isn't worth it. Movies are not interactive, so the reaction time doesn't matter. Movies can also be scripted to overcome visual issues in 24 fps film (judder in sideways movement for example if you try to follow the moving objects with your eyes).