From what I can see, for 27" 1440p ~144Hz gaming monitors, be it TN or IPS, the ASUS PG279Q (and equivalent from other brands) are still pretty much top of the line, yet they have been out since 2015, and are still plagued with backlight bleed and IPS glow issues. I find it insane that with all the advancements in both CPU and GPU tech over the last 5 years that monitors have completely stagnated. There is nothing. The only 'advancement' is with the bs 1ms claims from brands like LG, which are non-functional for gaming and you have to set them to 'standard mode' 5ms anyway for gaming, so in effect no change whatsoever... and a lot of the 27" panels coming out recently have taken a step backward to 1080p.
 
Are the few panel makers just not giving a crap because there's no competition to advance the technology? Have they agreed among themselves just to keep pumping out bs so they can enrich themselves more, rather than invest in R&D? I thought for sure there'd be something significant by now.. I'm still running on a PG278Q which came out in July 2014, and it's still considered a top line gaming monitor 6 years later. 6 years ago, the top HEDT CPU was probably the 4th Gen Intel i7-4770k (5th Gen Broadwell wasn't until 2015). NVidia was still on the GTX-700 series. Both Intel and NVidia (and AMD!) have had huge leaps in tech since then, as has memory.. everything except monitors, unless you count curved monitors, but the tech is still the same, just curved, lol.
 
Sigh.. just venting my frustrations.
 
/useless rant 
 
   

Only useful new tech stuff is g-sync and free-sync.  They both provide noticeable change in experience. 

49 inch & expensive
 
 
Samsung Odyssey G9 gaming monitor: 5120 x 1440 @ 240Hz will cost $1700

Agreed here as well. I, myself want a IPS 34" ultra wide, g-sync, 120Hz, HDR400 (minimum) 1440p screen. My Acer X34p is close but not quite there dangit! VA panels have already past that but ugh the ghosting on VA panels = super annoying.

Nereus
Are the few panel makers just not giving a crap because there's no competition to advance the technology?

Capitalism, that's why any company exists; although it is a catch 22.  Here's my thoughts...  


Think about how it got started: Somewhere along the way a company decided to take a leap and bring something to market based on internal studies that suggested the total cost to bring something to market was not only lower than the current demand, but that demand may actually grow.  At the same time, other companies (competition) watch closely for when to project the market might grow (meaning more customers next year than this year) big enough for another player to jump in at the right time, versus never getting big enough for more two players at best.

In other words, this isn't just because there isn't any more competition, maybe the demand and number of competitors have balanced out.  In a way, that is a bad situation, because the market can dip and suddenly a competitor will offer less products until they back out completely.  But every competitor will still forecast their own future and see if new features can attract new customers.  That's the goal, that's growth, it's not about giving products to those who are already loyal.  That's why I don't get people being fans, their focus is always on growth, i.e. new customers.  No company survives solely on their loyal customers.

Technology progress overall depends on what mass market can afford or get, i.e. average joe's needs do change, and have from a decade or two ago.  The goal of any company is to have sales from bread & butter pay for the whole program such that high-end becomes pure profit.  If high-end display manufacturers get enough regular monitor sales, then they can afford fancy features on fancy displays.