Judging from preliminary reviews, I had wished ASUS has went for a 165Hz native refresh rate instead of 144Hz native with up to 180Hz by overclocking. It had probably been much easier to balance image quality to not drop so drastically. Basically at 180Hz this monitor will have noticeably worse black levels and contrast ratio. I think a native 165Hz had been a much better compromise. Now I'm like only curious to FINALLY see someone comment how this fares at 160Hz and possibly 170Hz in terms of contrast and showing a blank black screen for backlight uniformity. There's like 4 "semi professional" reviews out there but NONE of them comment on 160 and 170Hz modes, only 144 and 180Hz, so disturbing! I want to know where the sweetspot for image quality vs performance goes, to me it seems to take too much of a hit at 180Hz and I'm not the kind of guy that keeps wanna switch settings around, I rather prefer the best compromise setting (the best quality vs performance setting).
It's unfortunate that it has issues with backlight/black levels at 180Hz as that is one of the things I'd have hoped to get a huge improvement from my current old 120Hz display that I have to keep at 23% brightness (ideal setting would be like 30-32%) due backlight bleed turning the screen too much blue otherwise.
Now if only there would exist an IPS 24" 1080p GSYNC 165Hz native (hopefully with a revolutionary fast IPS panel that it can handle 165Hz without any issues like the current 1440p 165Hz IPS displays can't fully keep up with like reviews have shown). I'm positive that even CSGO pros wouldn't be able to notice any difference in response times on the fastest IPS around and some might even prefer the added image quality in the negliable difference in performance. Now for the home user it would be an even more obvious choice apart from the price which would definitely set off quite a lot and going for 1440p instead. Not me though as I'm really looking for a 1080p display and would pay like up to $550 / 599 € for an IPS version even (in case ASUS is reading this and being like "no we are too worried about the skyhigh price of a IPS/1080p/GSYNC/144Hz(+) that ppl would just go 1440p" <- but it's not true if that's the case. Right now many gamers prefer 24"/1080p due much smaller GPU requirements and the less wide FOV makes it easier to focus on the action on screen so it's a suitable size for more hardcore fast paced gaming especially.
Due the image quality issues at 180Hz for this PG248Q I don't think the retail price should be more than $400 / 450 € TBH, as the 180Hz is kinda its selling point and then if you have to use it as a compromise, then it's not fully worth it. Besides, PG248Q's direct competitor, the Acer XB241H with also overclocking to 180Hz support is sitting at $399 / 399 € (lowest street price you find) today and I fail to see the ASUS being worth 100€ more, I'd pay 50€ for the more premium design though no doubt.