I keep hearing that a larger block size for Bitcoin increases the network weight for full nodes, i.e. more hard drive space required for full nodes. And hence it would make less full nodes, and so the network then becomes more centralized.
...but blocks are composed of transactions. And there'd be the same amount of transactions (more or less) either way. And a full node needs to have all blocks.
Small block sizes:
Full node would download more small blocks.
Large block sizes:
Full node would download less blocks, but they are bigger.
Wouldn't they each take close to the same amount of space either way? Yet this seems to be the main argument, other than the problems of forking at all for any change, against why not use a bigger block size.