And it isn't just about storage either. For those of us who do post processing, the additional time post processing can really add up. For a 90 minute set, every time I either do an analysis step to find out what my max and RMS levels are or do a processing step, it takes 2-3 minutes on a 24/48 file. And I'll easily have 10-12 of those steps, so 25-30 minutes of processing time per set, include file saves, file transfers and the time it takes to open the file into my DAW software, it is easily over an hour of computing time just for a teo set show. Make that 24/96 and it just doubled to take 2 hours for processing time alone to transfer my shows.
I have a backlog of hundreds of shows I need to transfer. That is a whole lot of my time for very dubious benefit, if any.
There are lots of threads on this topic. There is no evidence whatsoever that for any piece of gear that given the necessary filters or whatever that need to be implemented that 96 will be better than 48. Yep, it isn't even that you might not hear the difference, it is simply that without serious, rigorous testing, you will never know if you may be making significantly worse recordings with your particular gear by recording at 96 insteadmof 48. And then add in playback. With my playback, I can only listen at up to 24/48 natively. So if I record at 96, I will need to do post processing to get back to 24/48 to listen to it, and others may need it processed down to 16/44 to listen to it. Again, the DAW software might make the signal far worse to start at 24/96 and re-sample back to 24/48 than it would have been if you just recorded at 24/48 to begin with.
Which is all to say, everyone can do whatever they feel is best, but there is no absolute right and wrong -- it is just a personal choice.