> The internet doesn't care about multiplayer games
Good. This is how things should be with regard to dependencies.
Games depend on the internet. If the internet gets rewritten, you'd have to rewrite your games. Low likelihood (of the internet changing), "medium" cost (to rewrite games).
If the internet did care about multiplayer games, then changes to multiplayer games could require us to change the internet too. High likelihood (of games changing), enormous cost (to update the internet).
I think it should care about games and that it already does. A lot of development for computers was made possible because of gaming.
Today streaming is also a huge factor. But the principle is the same that any low latency application will profit from expectations that are created by consumers on a large scale.
So I think the premise of the article is wrong. The "net" does care about speed and latency. And I doubt a Balkanization of private networks will be advantageous for anyone besides the respective providers. Premium traffic shouldn't be the goal. Common infrastructure that can handle the load is and exclusive network access should be minimized to as few applications as possible.
If the needs of the internet using public change, the networks that server that public should also change. The internet should absolutely care about how well it is serving the needs of its users.
Good. This is how things should be with regard to dependencies.
Games depend on the internet. If the internet gets rewritten, you'd have to rewrite your games. Low likelihood (of the internet changing), "medium" cost (to rewrite games).
If the internet did care about multiplayer games, then changes to multiplayer games could require us to change the internet too. High likelihood (of games changing), enormous cost (to update the internet).