yes I'm talking raw

at this point that should be a given
There you go again. Wanting to buy a Rolls-Royce at a Toyota price, or a Rolex for a Timex price.
The
Canon EOS 1D X Mark III is the first digital camera in history that has an unlimited raw buffer shooting at the camera's maximum frame rate. And suddenly we think it should be a given for every new digital camera on the market? I guess you'll next suggest that it should be a given that every sub-$500 APS-C and µ4/3 camera body heretofore introduced should be capable of 8K60 as well?
For most of us, the practical real world difference of being able to shoot bursts of raw images longer than, say, three seconds vs unlimited is trivial. In the real world where actual revenue is being generated by photographic activity, shooting at high frame rates for extended periods of time is still done almost exclusively to JPEG.
Even when it is not, there are plenty of other considerations that guide those who are doing it for a living (or even in sufficeintly large enough quantities as a hobbyist) to use the types of bodies that currently do offer extended buffer capacity. If someone is shooting sports or action more than just occasionally there are other factors that weigh heavier on the decision of what type of camera to use as well as in what file format to save them. Durability becomes a prime consideration. Thus build quality and shutter life rating are just as important as sustained burst rates.
Speed to market also becomes critical, thus dictates that most sports/action shooters go straight to JPEG so that they can push the image to their client/employer within scant seconds of shooting it when necessary. This has only recently begun to change as those sports/action photographers who do not need speed to market have only recently had the opportunity to shoot extended high speed bursts and also save raw files at the same time.