[nyanpasu64]

CRTs have properties quite different from LCDs, so many gamers (or media consumers) have reasons to prefer them. Standard-definition TVs and PVMs having better compatibility with pre-HD consoles, and look better (subjectively and closer to developer intent). VGA CRTs can display multiple resolutions without scaling artifacts, and have a softer appearance than LCD monitors which enhances many games and artwork. And CRT flicker produces less motion blur than all non-strobed flat-panel displays at the same refresh rate (compare https://www.testufo.com/ on a LCD and CRT), and less latency than OLED or high-frame-rate/VRR displays (because liquid crystals take time to rotate into position).

Whether it's better to buy a new monitor or run a rescued CRT isn't merely a financial calculation based on manufacturing and operating costs and emissions. For retro gamers and CRT fans, LCDs are usually not a replacement for CRTs in gaming and media consumption, unless you use emulators and CRT shaders, or expensive scaler boxes which apply simulated CRT effects to real consoles' video outputs. And for all but the most obsessed CRT fans, CRTs are not a replacement for modern high-resolution LCD monitors for web browsing and office tasks (the sharpness, lack of flicker, and not having to juggle VGA DACs is a major advantage).

In practice the ideal display is a complex calculation based on scan rate (SDTVs can't show high-resolution signals and VGA monitors usually can't show television signals), display size (>40" LCDs are easier to get and move around than >30" CRTs), cost and reliability. Some people have multiple CRTs they maintain and use for different purposes (alongside LCDs), but I only have the space and energy for one VGA monitor (though I envy those with entire game rooms filled with vintage particle accelerator displays).