For me, I tend to like it when a game is not bigger than 20GBs. Maximum range I'm willing to swallow is roughly in the 50GBs, and anything nearing 100GBs is a hard no unless it is genuinely worth it (translation: Baldur's Gate 3 is it but not GTA V). Like at some point it has to be a game that proves its worth taking up space that other better or more enjoyable games could occupy when given limited storage space.

I don't see how the size of the game is in any way, shape or form relevant. Storage space is cheap AF...

Bandwidth for some, is expensive.

I personally gravitate towards anything under 1GB. Most games over 20, is graphics bloat anyway. When devs make high quality graphics, the game usually sucks.

Lucky for devs, that people are like fish. SpArKly NOM NOM NOM!! Hooked and roasted....

I'm rather oldschool. I stare at the installer for IL2 Stormovik, and think, "Huh, do I really want to try it that badly"?

720k. Anything more and it spills onto a second disc. 880k if you use fancy non-standard formatting.

There can still be good games under 1 GB, and I much appreciate it when I see one.
Otherwise, sticking to a 4 GB limit would be nice. 1 file to download off GOG, 1 DVD, can back it up on FAT32 too...
Past that, it enters sigh territory more and more. And past 20 GB it'd better have a damn good explanation.

I don't have one because I don't think the idea makes any sense. I know the amount will vary depending on what type of game it is. RDR2 was 150 gigs and I was fine with it. I was also fine with BG3.

Eh. While it's usually not a terribly big concern for me, once a game passes the 60GB mark or so it really needs to justify its bloat. I'm certainly not ecstatic that game sizes of 100-150GB have become common for big budget titles these days.

^This.

There isn't really a sweet spot, but generally speaking, the smaller the better; look out for your pennies and your pounds will look out for themselves, as they say.
Considering that the standard of living in these parts (water, electricity, food, council tax, etc) either has recently, is set to shortly, or in the future will likely increase, being a little frugal and mindful about one's purchases seems prudent. To take it to the extremes, every pound saved on electricity and readily available and affordable storage is another pound and GB made available to be spent not on unnecessary subscriptions services, but on physical media such as second hand literature or DVDs, BlueRays, etc before they become doctored or banned outright; as has already been the case with Roald Dahl, for example.

I just downloaded Subverse for I think 66 GB. I haven't tried, but I hear it's good. Well, high production value. I mean, 66 GB for an adult game. It's like a unicorn. LOL.

What's my "sweet spot for game file sizes"?
Interesting question.

Going by how much fun I had in the past, with games that fit on a single floppy disk with 340 kb(!), or (later) on a single CD-ROM with 650 MB...the modern games with their 100+ GB file sizes seem to be doing something wrong.

Would I prefer it, if my games came in smaller sizes, than modern games often are?
Of course!
Is (re-)downloading 28+ pieces of 4GB-sized files a real pain in the ass?
Of course it is.

But...would I skip the purchase of a game simply because of its (huge) file size?
No!

Not if I really want to play it.

But yeah - those modern file sizes are a great argument for physical media.
Just buy the game on DVD(s)/BR(s) and you only have to download the (nowadays inevitable) patches.

However, all that's moot now, because DRM-free physical media is a dying breed - if it isn't extinct, already.

1. >1GB and a ton of fun regardless: I'm positively surprised and impressed
2. 2-5 GB: for downloading and trying out a game without really knowing whether I want to play it yet
3. up to 20 GB: worth it to me, if I'm sure I really want to play it
4. 20-40 GB: is that really necessary?
5. >40GB: you've got to be kidding me, let's install something else instead

I can't recall any case where the difference between 1 and 5 in my enjoyment of the game was big enough to justify the huge difference in disk space.

If I like the game, it doesn't matter, I’ll play it anyway, and whatever makes up the file size probably contributes to why I like it.

If I don’t like the game, it doesn’t matter, because I’ll just remove it from my hard drive.