Most of it - textures with different quality

Gears of War 4 ~136 GB
Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 – 113,3 GB
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare – 101,3 GB
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) -- 170 GB
Grand Theft Auto V – 76,8 GB
Middle-earth: Shadow of War – 97,7 GB
Final Fantasy XV - 85 (or 148 GB with 4k textures)
Red Dead Redemption 2 ~ 112GB
The Elder Scrolls Online ~ 102 GB
Quantum Break – 178,1 GB
Mortal kombat X ~40-50GB

Welcome to the future, cupcake!

Originally posted by Killer Frost:

Most of it - textures with different quality

Gears of War 4 ~136 GB
Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 – 113,3 GB
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare – 101,3 GB
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) -- 170 GB
Grand Theft Auto V – 76,8 GB
Middle-earth: Shadow of War – 97,7 GB
Final Fantasy XV - 85 (or 148 GB with 4k textures)
Red Dead Redemption 2 ~ 112GB
The Elder Scrolls Online ~ 102 GB
Quantum Break – 178,1 GB
Mortal kombat X ~40-50GB

Welcome to the future, cupcake!

Why?
How?

I mean ESO is a huge world, I can see where all that data goes. This game is like 4 maps.

bruh

Bruh

Am I just too new to notice many more? please fill me in, cause in my few matches all Isaw was 3 or 4 maps.

13 maps in the base game, 2 in Shadows over bogenhafen, 3 in back to ubersreik, 1 in winds of magic, 1 hidden as an anniversary event.
You have them all in your game files because you can play them all even without the DLC.

The biggest thing bloating the size of the game is the fact that assets and textures shared between maps are still repeated in the game files, for the sake of loading time speed.

Originally posted by Kaelus Von Sestiaf:

13 maps in the base game, 2 in Shadows over bogenhafen, 3 in back to ubersreik, 1 in winds of magic, 1 hidden as an anniversary event.
You have them all in your game files because you can play them all even without the DLC.

The biggest thing bloating the size of the game is the fact that assets and textures shared between maps are still repeated in the game files, for the sake of loading time speed.

Wow, you're really knowledgeable about the game! Thanks for shedding a lot of light on the mystery!

Originally posted by Kaelus Von Sestiaf:

assets and textures shared between maps are still repeated in the game files, for the sake of loading time speed.

How exactly does that effect load time, doesnt it take the same amount of time to load into ram no matter where it comes from? if anything I would think it would take more time because it has more address tables to go through. Thats an interesting technique.

Originally posted by 250RoundMags:

Originally posted by Kaelus Von Sestiaf:

assets and textures shared between maps are still repeated in the game files, for the sake of loading time speed.

How exactly does that effect load time, doesnt it take the same amount of time to load into ram no matter where it comes from? if anything I would think it would take more time because it has more address tables to go through. Thats an interesting technique.

Well, basically, when you load up a map the game looks for the pack of all the resources that map needs, and opens that up.
Fatshark has decided that this is a faster method than, say, having all of the assets simply lying around in separate files. Grouping up the assets into boxes that can be shared across maps is also a bad idea because of RAM space, you don't want to load up any asset you do not want.

I'm not entirely sure about the specifics about exactly why this is faster than other options. I know it partly has to do with the fact that FS can keep all of the map's assets in a hashtable, which is much faster to access that accessing multiple individual files through Windows' file explorer methods, but I'm not sure why this is the specific way they chose to do it.

In any case, the end result is that each map has all of the assets it needs in a single pack. You open a map, it just opens that pack and takes everything from it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6MkESn1v1w&feature=emb_title

Originally posted by Kaelus Von Sestiaf:

Originally posted by 250RoundMags:

How exactly does that effect load time, doesnt it take the same amount of time to load into ram no matter where it comes from? if anything I would think it would take more time because it has more address tables to go through. Thats an interesting technique.

Well, basically, when you load up a map the game looks for the pack of all the resources that map needs, and opens that up.
Fatshark has decided that this is a faster method than, say, having all of the assets simply lying around in separate files. Grouping up the assets into boxes that can be shared across maps is also a bad idea because of RAM space, you don't want to load up any asset you do not want.

I'm not entirely sure about the specifics about exactly why this is faster than other options. I know it partly has to do with the fact that FS can keep all of the map's assets in a hashtable, which is much faster to access that accessing multiple individual files through Windows' file explorer methods, but I'm not sure why this is the specific way they chose to do it.

In any case, the end result is that each map has all of the assets it needs in a single pack. You open a map, it just opens that pack and takes everything from it.

It's simple. HDD optimalizations.
Unlike SSDs, HDDs have moving parts (the disk and the reader head), whenever the game have to read something from the HDD the reader head have to physically move to the disk part where the data is physically stored.
Because the assets between maps are duplicated and arranged on the disk in a physically close proximity to each other, the head have to move less, reducing seek time (while the head moves from point A to point B), thus shorter loading time.
You can try it out like this: your palm is the reader head and start waving without moving your elbow, the smaller movements take less time to perform than the longer ones.

SSDs on the other had don't have this problem.

This is why the new generation of consoles are kind of a big deal, they have SSD inside. No need to duplicate assets for loading screen speed up. So more game will come which won't run on HDDs and require SSD. Why? Because that time spent on asset allocation optimalizations can be spent elsewhere.
Also, no duplicate files = less disk space requirement

+ 3 Maps "Return to Castle Drachenfels"

Originally posted by Doxorn:

Originally posted by Kaelus Von Sestiaf:

Well, basically, when you load up a map the game looks for the pack of all the resources that map needs, and opens that up.
Fatshark has decided that this is a faster method than, say, having all of the assets simply lying around in separate files. Grouping up the assets into boxes that can be shared across maps is also a bad idea because of RAM space, you don't want to load up any asset you do not want.

I'm not entirely sure about the specifics about exactly why this is faster than other options. I know it partly has to do with the fact that FS can keep all of the map's assets in a hashtable, which is much faster to access that accessing multiple individual files through Windows' file explorer methods, but I'm not sure why this is the specific way they chose to do it.

In any case, the end result is that each map has all of the assets it needs in a single pack. You open a map, it just opens that pack and takes everything from it.

It's simple. HDD optimalizations.
Unlike SSDs, HDDs have moving parts ........

You should probably learn what youre talking about before posting it around randomly on the internet and looking obnoxious and off topic. People will appreciate you more too.