100% agreed with OP.
To be frank, I can't see myself ever spending $60 on any game that's less than 60GB. If I'm paying you $60 then I expect 60GB or more. No compromises, no compressesises. Alberto Ayynstein published a great paper that explains the theory of dollar to filesize. The conclusion was essentially $1 = 1GB. With that in mind, why would a studio ever want to employ efficient formats, bitrate, compression, and rendering techniques that makes their game take up less gigabytes? Why spend more development time and pay for more middleware licenses? What benefits are there in doing that?
Furthermore -- and this is not a criticism at The Koala Mission -- but any game that ships without a day one patch isn't a game worth my money. I'm sorry if you think there should be standards and quality and shit, but that's not what the kids are into these days. And I would know what the kids are into because I've got a lot of kid in me. I'm sorry if your studio wanted to do an archaic and outdated and and and and and and and an old way of shipping games, but to me, a large day one patch signifies that you get modern development. You get the kids. We live in different times, so an avoidable devaluation of the gaming experience is awesome. Day one patches tell me that you understand that a game is never done. Always be patching. A game is a snowflake; it is a unique and delicate product that shatters all that has come before it and all that is around it. A game should, in my opinion, only be reviewed after thirty or seventy nine patches, whichever works best for the publisher. That's the way the crunchy on the outside but soft in the middle chocolate chip cookie that is gaming crumbles. A game is an evolving product -- it's like... it's like your grandmother. Just think about it. There was a time when your grandmother probably thought "Horses are so fucking dope bruh". But then what happened? Ford came through and cars happened. Grandma went from horses to motor vehicles. Did your grandfather think "Wow, Mildred Flappers is into cars now, I'm out"? No. Your grandfather stuck with your grandmother. And that's why you're here today. You wouldn't be here without your grandmother evolving with time, so by that logic, games won't exist in the future if they don't have a large filesize and large day one patches. Nevermind the fact that a game is not a horse. A game should be a 60 to 900 GB file, and it should have sixty two day one patches. That's the future -- delaying the consumption time between a purchase and gameplay by practices that only benefit the bottomline of a business.
I've never believed and been a fan of the whole "There are people in parts of the world who love console gaming but are being turned off on it with each passing day because the practices and products that are being released by developers and or publishers are horrifically anti-efficient, anti-consumer, and anti-jump-the-fuck-in-and-just-play". To me, anyone who thinks that should just move to Anaheim. Anaheim has Disney and fast internet. Who would want to live anywhere other than Anaheim? What value is there in living in a different part of the world, and why should a company from Seattle or Tokyo be aware of the regional differences that exist among their userbase and thus make as much effort as possible to ensure the best gameplay and interactivity experience for their regionally diverse userbase? I'm sorry if you think that multi-billion dollar corporations have the capacity to hire an extra guy or two to look at a game before release and say "This ocean of digital shit is unplayable so we can't release it like this". I'm sorry but you just don't understand how hiring and paying someone in pineapple pizza and Mountain Dew Baja Blast works. Do you realize that by having to pay someone to ensure the consumer doesn't have a shitacular experience you are, in effect, engaging in an outdated practice of quality assurance? How do you not realize that by having people in your company to "look out" for the consumer you are being pro-consumer; a terrible and outdated practice in today's fast evolving and exciting world of marketing mistruths, misdirections, and Twitter misfires? Why not just work on a game, work on the day one patch, go to the gym and hit on that cute girl in the fantasstic Under Armour running tights, work on the deliberately misleading advertising and promotional campaign, and then cash as many checks as possible? That's how you do business -- you fuck over as many people as possible and then act dumb when people go "Hey wait a minute you guys say you're pro-consumer but everything your business is doing is the very definition of anti-consumer because it doesn't benefit me as a consumer of your product". And don't lie to yourself and say "Movies and apps and music and podcasts and TV shows and books are all available in a digital format yet the creators of those bits of entertainment are able to ship a complete product that isn't a broken and unplayable mess of half-truths and exorbitant file sizes". A game is interactive. Have you even SEEN Titanfall 2? I thought so. Games are way more complex than any other form of entertainment and everything else and as such should never be criticized for being distributed in a horribly inefficient manner, failing to work, and failing to deliver on pro-consumer practices.
Again, games are like snowflakes. Just open your mouth, stick your tongue out, and wait for it.