PC only (or Nvidia exclusive to be mroe correct), it still has some sort of effect in place it just doesn't look as fluffy and more like a texture.

The Witcher 3 game itself when it came out was about 22GB IIRC. The bonus goodies brought it up to around 35GB or so. With the free DLC and 2 expansion packs the downloaded files now are around 40-50GB, but I'm not sure how big the installed game is alone. I've kept all of the installers, patches, goodie variants, etc. over time so my Witcher 3 folder is like 400GB in size, hard to tell these days. hehehe

Hell yeah, and if they lap it up to extreme profitability, then the development model is confirmed and we get more of it. I'm personally all for it, even if it means I might have computer or Internet technical limitations for some future game myself. I want them to constantly push the limits. There will always be games that are playable on my current setup, I don't want my setup to hold back evolution and innovation of the entertainment medium. There are already a number of games that murder my GPU for example. I'm not upset about it. Disappointed I can't play them adequately yes, but I'm glad they were made that way. It means when I upgrade later down the line those games will be that much more mind melting to play.

It's the price of progress that I'm at least willing to pay. Doesn't matter what any one of us ultimately thinks is right or wrong or good or bad though, it's the marketplace as a whole that they target and who ultimately decide if it is ok. The best indication that I'm aware of out there as to what we can expect game developers will target on the high end - is Steam hardware survey stats.

As of right now, I own about 5-10 games that my GPU struggles with (including Witcher 3). I can play them all in reduced graphics etc. but not as they were meant to be played. Some newer ones coming out I will have to hold off on, but for my personality etc. I'm totally ok with that. I might sometimes be a bit disappointed to wait, but I know I will get to enjoy them when I decide to upgrade down the line and pay less for the game as a result too, and possibly get the GOTY pack with all DLC thrown in yada yada. :)

My GPU (Radeon HD7850) has been thrown under the bus by new AAA games for a while now. :oP There will need to be a few dozen games or else one or two huge OMG I CANT WAIT games come out before I crack for a new GPU though. On the Internet bandwidth side of things though, total non-issue for me. I have 30Mbps and when I install a game it is usually instantaneous for me, or I go make a drink or something to eat, maybe have a crap or fold laundry or whatever, come back and the game is installed. I'd totally get by just fine even with 10Mbps though too, but I'm probably more patient with waiting for downloads/installation than the average person. 60Mbps is only around $10 more per month if I ever care, and 120+ is another $10 or so. I could afford that, but it's just living-large excess to me, I'm comfy with my sluggish 30Mbps. :) I could NEVER live on dialup or in some remote location with pterodactyls flying around and moose running amuck. Wait, I'm in Canada, scratch the moose comment... um... crocodiles! Yeah, I could never live in remote location with those and crappy Internet. Take away my food before you take away my Internet, that's my motto. :)

Good thing my old ears don't ache for the nuances of uncompressed game audio, then.

http://www.download-time.com/ says a 65GB download at 768kbps would take 202 hours. Haha! 8-and-a-half days.
I don't disagree necessarily, especially since I'm looking to buy a new rig soon. But it does suck hard for those with caps or slow connections.

Oh absolutely, and by that I presume you mean tinyE. :) I've got a local friend stuck on 5-6Mbps who often only gets 3-4Mbps and that does really really suck for him too. It's pretty shitty that in North America at least (and many other countries too), that while broadband access is fantastic in some areas, it totally sucks rocks in others. There's really no good excuse for that. There are countries out there which have mind bogglingly better Internet in 1Gbps speeds or better standard which are otherwise considered behind the times, and here we are in NA with pockets of decent access, pockets of craptastic or no access, and the odd location with 1Gbps. It's almost criminal. I've got an acquaintance in Arizona who lives in the boonies on dialup modem FFS. That's terrible! He can't even watch Youtube! What does the government do with everyone's tax money? Crazy.

OP has been updated with new information.

Modern Warfare Remastered is 40GB

Infinite Warfare is 90GB

I mean me. That 768k example is our new connection. Country living has its drawbacks, we're learning. ; )

Not a big deal - I'm not the target audience for those titles anyway.

Get it downloading and go fishing or shooting deer or harvesting wheat for a while or whatever it is y'all do. :)

Cannot be the code, even if it were shitty code. Not enough programmers in the world for writing a 90 GB long programm. Must be game data, heavily bloated of course.

I would not be surprised if VALVe soon introduced a throttle or data cap for these huge games, along with a monthly paid subscription for Steam Pro which removes the caps.

I believe that this would be a major mistake, especially for a leading company like Valve: It is one of the few things that can sour relations with developers, publishers, and customers: As a general rule, companies want to be able to get as many customers to consume their wares. Creating artificial barriers is a good way to lose business, especially if your rivals can offer a better deal.

If anything, Valve would be trying to get an download-exempt status with the ISP companies, while trying to keep GOG and friends from obtaining the same.

'What are your thoughts on the increasing install sizes of games?'

On one hand it puts yet another restriction on who can play a modern triple-a game today.
It will not be enough to have a relatively new graphics card, reliable internet access and so on.

On the other hand, triple-a games have always been a luxury item in my eyes, a high-end product.
You pay premium to get photo-realistic graphics, with lots of glitter, particles and shiny stuff.

Triple-a games to me have never really been games that 'everyone can play', whether in terms of affordability or having a strong-enough PC for it.

The few triple-a games I play are on console, predominantly exclusives like The Last of Us and DriveClub. I don't buy enough triple-a games to make space on my PS4 an issue. Once I finish a game I just uninstall it, since I always by them on disc, not as downloads.

If there are companies who'd absolutely love to impose bandwidth throttles or data caps on a service like Steam, it would be the telecoms/ISPs in the US, like Comcast. I bet they are right now frothing at the mouth to impose severe bandwidth throtles/caps on places like Steam, Origin, GOG, Humble, or Battle.net (or for games like LoL). Oh, but for the low, low price of $99.99/mo (plus installation and activation fees) we can upgrade you to our new Gamer Pro package, with higher download/upload speeds, lower latency, less pings and more frags!

All the more reason why Net Neutrality needs to be defended.

Video games use relatively little bandwidth compared to streaming videos/movies from Youtube Netflix etc. I doubt that there are very many ISPs which have any major concerns over the amount of bandwidth games use up compared to streaming video these days.

Net neutrality in general is definitely very important however.

Oh sure, but that doesn't mean that ISPs/telecom companies won't seize any opportunity they can find to charge people more money. My experience with Rogers and Bell have taught me that much.