there is almost no one who has multigigabit internet and even for people that do, you spend significantly less than 1 percent of your time on that device downloading. its a complete non issue. this device is a midrange at best pc, so having a gigabit connection is exactly where it should be. if you want to have the best of the best build a pc.
That's an exaggeration. Affordable multi-gigabit fiber is widely available in plenty of metropolitan areas in the US and Europe and mid-range motherboards have included 2.5 GbE for years now and the NICs themselves are dirt cheap. I don't think it's irrational to be disappointed.
That's why I specified that it's widely available in plenty of metropolitan areas, not a large part of the country. Internet service absolutely is abysmal in the US as a whole, but many large cities do have affordable access to fiber.
This is not true, at least around where I live. Gigabit ethernet(which is gigabit for only the downloads, and <50 mbps for upload) is 110$ per month. Comcast is the only internet service provider who offers speeds over 50 mbps.
So I make due. If I want to download a 40gb game, I take a break. I read a book, or eat dinner. It works itself out, and I can play my game.
My point was that 1 Gbps+ internet is available in enough select metropolitan areas that saying "almost no one has it" is inaccurate, not that it's widely available everywhere to the average user.
Obviously the subset of users with multi-gig fiber is relatively small, but not practically zero like the comment suggested. Anecdotally, 3 Gbps fiber is widely available in my medium sized US city of about ~500k for as low as $110. I paid the same for asymmetrical gigabit cable internet in the last city I lived. It just depends.
2.5Gbit via PON fiber is getting common, but you won't get that from Comcast. US isn't great at internet speeds anyway. I've had symmetric 1gbit for ages here in EU and you can even get 10g in some places.
