I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available download bandwidth. I think that games have gotten richer and the graphics environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a point where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of being shipped on multiple discs.
When I was a rural DSL customer, my problem wasn't necessarily with the size of the games, but rather that you'd have to re-download the entire game every week. It would take almost an entire week to download a game, then by time it's finally updated they've updated a tree texture and you need to download the whole game again. I understand why this happens but customers who didn't have access to broadband just got the shaft.
I still have a lot of friends who don't have access to broadband and simply can't play modern games because of the always-online requirement and constant, huge updates.
If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense. If Fiber is being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for 1Gbps being more expensive than any lower capacity.
The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of
customers that subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them
suddenly switched to a 1Gb service, would you expect an increase
in overall bandwidth usage?
I've been looking around for some other comments on bandwidth
trends but I don't know how much of that would/should be
confidential based on privacy or trade secret.