Yep, had the cheapest 22" LG monitor, which was also on ridiculous sale when I bought it.
What about 1440? It seems that most people agree that 1080 is too low a resolution to be ideal. That's why I think TV makers went to it instead of to 1440, so they could sell 720, then 1080, then 4K — instead of reaching a point where TV sets looked good enough in just two iterations (720 and then 1440).
Probably the same reason why 900p never picked up beyond PCs and laptops, and maybe because with all the pixel densities of other devices it costs about the same to manufacture a 2160p panel as a 1440p panel. Plus, regardless of what TPU snobs may say about it, there is a huge demand for 4K everywhere (even if it makes no sense logically). Basically we are at the point where an uber-hi-tech 5.5" 4K display from SHARP costs nearly half of what it was just a couple of years back (and that's a device with a friggin' 800+ PPI density!). Less dense devices (e.g. laptop screens, monitor LCDs etc) have even higher relative price drop. That's why you see 4K everywhere. Hardware may not be able to push it all the way in 3D, but manufacturers are making tons of LCD displays and they have to sell it en-masse (and make more $$$ with higher margins).
If one games at a lower resolution, like 2560x1440 then the frequency of having to replace high end hardware is reduced a little.
But it's not like all of the sudden we've lost the ability to switch our games to lower resolution, if the performance is not satisfactory. I've dealt with that before, when I got my very first FHD LCD monitor and Crysis would become a total stutterfest at that res on my old GTX275 or 2x4850 CF (or even any flagship GPU of that time).
We've been in the exact same situation before, some of us simply forgot about it.
