I think the all-digital future might actually be a myth when it comes to games.

Yes, yes. I know. Pick your popped-out monocles off the floor and let me explain.

For 90% of the population, "good enough to stream Netflix" is all the internet speed they need. There are no other applications of internet where further bottlenecks exist. So why would they be willing to pay for more speed, which they'll almost never use, purely so they can download games that they can just as easily buy on disc?

And, without that consumer demand, why will internet companies be motivated to upgrade their infrastructure? (They're barely motivated to please the customers they have as it is.)

Faster internet is as much a cultural and political issue as it is a technological one at this point-- and now that speeds have reached the point of "good enough" for most people (but games are only going to keep getting bigger), I think we're seeing the point where technological capability and the cultural/political reality diverge.

(For example, "High-Definition" terrestrial radio exists, and 93% of people listen to terrestrial radio-- so why haven't they upgraded to High-Definition? Because they already consider FM radio "good enough." And it's been that way... for eighty years.)

Games might be 100GB by the end of this generation. If 4k (4096 × 2160 pixels) catches on over the next decade (and once the economy recovers, TV companies are going to want a Next Big Thing), the next gen could potentially require textures 4 times as large as they are now (no, really, do the math on that).

So, is Google going to pay for free fiber for the entire planet just so we can download our insanely large video games? Because if not, that level of internet just isn't going to exist.

Hence, 2TB Purple-Ray discs. Or games on flash drives. Or something like that.

I think the "all-digital future" might be the "flying car" of media.