For most things, imo, there's a middle ground. I don't think that getting the super-high end version of anything is worth it unless you truly use it enough to justify it, like for work or a serious hobby. But the cheapest option is usually junk that will do a poor job and won't last; if anything you'd save money by spending a little more for something decent, even if it's not world-class.
That's why I went ahead and got one of those 49" Samsung displays. I use it probably 300 days a year and I'll likely keep it for 10 years like my old ones. I could have saved money but this was a luxury that I can easily justify by how often I use it.
I had one of those, but sold it after a couple of years. Turns out that a good majority of the games I played either didn't work in ultra-widescreen mode, or when it did, it didn't really make that much of an improvement. Last year I bought a 4K projector and found myself using it way more than my monitor, as gaming on a 100+" screen felt so much more immersive. So I ended up selling my Odyssey and bought a 16:10 monitor instead. I found the 16:10 ratio better for productivity, and also felt it also more suitable for the games I play (mostly RPGs/RTS).