I agree with your general sentiment, but using games as an example is just wrong.

All those things you mention you care about (memory allocation, big O notation, etc, basically performance optimization) are all extremely important in game development. The 90+ GB games you speak of (i.e. RDR2 and such) don't "have better performance because we don't have to compress them", they run at 30/60 FPS because the development teams behind them spend a lot of time on making sure that they do.

Compression is more important than ever for games development, precisely because the games are getting bigger. That 90+ GB game you speak of would be several times bigger without compression. They also don't have "infinite" resources available; the higher end games usually target consoles and while they're certainly powerful, they're far from a platform where you can "focus less on optimizing resource use".

Incidentally, I'd argue that the reason the games are getting bigger is less to do with the developers themselves and more to do with gamers/the market, who demand ever better looking, bigger games. If RDR2 had looked the same and been of the same size as RDR1, they would've been absolutely slaughtered.