Downloading Games Causes More Pollution Than Boxed Games

They seem to ignore the carbon costs from having the game box in a store and assume all copies sell instantly or something. :)
 
They seem to ignore the carbon costs from having the game box in a store and assume all copies sell instantly or something. :)

When you release a game for the Christmas buying season, you always aim high since you can't produce a second run quickly enough to restock. However, at many game companies, perhaps only 15% of titles hit those potential numbers (and those 15% subsidize the underperforming 85%). Some games languish for various reasons including various bugs that are not cost effective to fix, or were discovered late and the developer took a new contract and is moving too slow on the patch, or the internal development team was canned etc. It's amazing how short the effective shelf life of most boxed games are (the 85% that drop to under 10% of peak in 6 weeks) and if they don't get momentum, you end up with a large quantity of excess stock destroyed for tax purposes. I wonder how the carbon footprint looks now...
 
They seem to ignore the carbon costs from having the game box in a store and assume all copies sell instantly or something. :)

And the carbon costs of printing the cash that someone might use to buy a physical copy in a store. (and just how far does one have to drive to get to that store?) Especially from a rural area in their 9MPG pickup truck that's weighted down by gun racks. :D (just being colorful there hehehe)
 
When you release a game for the Christmas buying season, you always aim high since you can't produce a second run quickly enough to restock. However, at many game companies, perhaps only 15% of titles hit those potential numbers (and those 15% subsidize the underperforming 85%). Some games languish for various reasons including various bugs that are not cost effective to fix, or were discovered late and the developer took a new contract and is moving too slow on the patch, or the internal development team was canned etc. It's amazing how short the effective shelf life of most boxed games are (the 85% that drop to under 10% of peak in 6 weeks) and if they don't get momentum, you end up with a large quantity of excess stock destroyed for tax purposes. I wonder how the carbon footprint looks now...

This also makes me wonder about those developers in the 85% that have to go see a therapist because their game was a flop and they lost their loved ones working 18 hour days for no reason.
 
This also makes me wonder about those developers in the 85% that have to go see a therapist because their game was a flop and they lost their loved ones working 18 hour days for no reason.

I meant to elaborate on that in regards to fuel usage.
 
And a higher carbon footprint... Don't forget that!
 
I meant to elaborate on that in regards to fuel usage.

Well if the company invested in digital distribution model, all they need to do is email him a pdf of "Who Moved my Cheese" and a copy of Eliza with dosbox.
 
Almost like they assumed the entire internet was built for the sole purpose of downloading games and music.
 
I'm gonna be honest..I am not a huge fan of Digital downloading games..I want a physical disk.

That being said..even I call Bullshit on this study.

Why..

How much power does it take to power the servers to host the download files?
How much power for infrastructure / data center cooling and so on?
How much power to power the internet services used to distribute the files around the world?
Now factor in manufacturing of cables, servers and so on and other equipment used to connect users to servers...

Doesn't seem so impossible now does it..
 
Why..

How much power does it take to power the servers to host the download files?
How much power for infrastructure / data center cooling and so on?
How much power to power the internet services used to distribute the files around the world?
Now factor in manufacturing of cables, servers and so on and other equipment used to connect users to servers...

Doesn't seem so impossible now does it..

Not that simple. Those latter factors are one(ish) time costs. The same could be said about optical media fabrication and duplication machines. Those companies will also need at least SOME servers to operate as well, not to mention telecom services to communicate with their clients, partners, shippers, etc. Not to mention fuel costs of employees etc. This type of infrastructure cost can be applied to both scenarios.
 
Why..

How much power does it take to power the servers to host the download files?
How much power for infrastructure / data center cooling and so on?
How much power to power the internet services used to distribute the files around the world?
Now factor in manufacturing of cables, servers and so on and other equipment used to connect users to servers...

Doesn't seem so impossible now does it..

Yes..it does. When you factor in manufacturing vs digital this isn't even an argument. It is a flagrantly bullshit study that had to heavily skew the data to show what they wanted. Try actually reading the article, if you can't instantly see all the ways they flagrantly manipulated the data to get the numbers they wanted, then I don't know what to tell you.

Bullshit study is Bullshit.
 
Here is the only way I can see this study being true:

Boxed games sit on store shelves collecting dust in comparison to digitally downloaded games for PC; hence digitally downloaded games are being "played" more and use more electricity. :p
 
Downloading games also makes you a pedophile and animal abuser.
 
So, when I install my copy of left for dead 2 from the disk, for, lets say 8gb, then, because the game was patched so much, I have to go and download another 8gb of patches... What then?

Also... What about the issue of games getting installed? It takes AT LEAST an hour for Gran Truismo 5 to install on the ps3. Then, there is an optional install too.

There are also the updates. You're still waiting for updates... If you play an old game that has a hundred updates, you could have just downloaded the game in the same time that it would take to just download and install the updates.

This argument is stupid....

I would like to see how much money ruined this study to promote physical copies of games.
 
I never understood the notion of electricity being linked to carbon emissions. It's not everywhere that has dirty power plants. Here for example, it's all hydro electric. I suppose they could do some study saying that for each GB downloaded a fish gets sliced up by a turbine or something, though. :p
 
Study is faulted because they don't consider the Gas in the car you are driving to the Retail establishment. Then Amazon deliveries that the UPS guy make which burns fuel then you have to consider the truck that goes to the retail establishment to drop off the game.
 
Study is faulted because they don't consider the Gas in the car you are driving to the Retail establishment. Then Amazon deliveries that the UPS guy make which burns fuel then you have to consider the truck that goes to the retail establishment to drop off the game.

The study is flawed because they make too many assumptions and accommodations:

  • Assumes media is on one or two blu ray discs (only true for console)
  • Doesn't consider the manufacturing location being offshore (most physical games will be manufactured in Asia)
  • Doesn't consider that many physical games will be purchased by mail
  • Doesn't factor in that some locations have very clean sources of electricity
  • Doesn't consider the much much larger PC market
  • Doesn't examine the implications of different internet speeds
  • Doesn't consider End of Life management of the physical media or its packaging materials
  • etc

Electricity is the primary source of carbon in the USA (closely followed by transportation) ... although reducing electricity consumption is desirable, there are far more effective ways for most of us to do that (turn up thermostats, turn off lights, bundle up in winter and turn down the thermostat, etc) ... on the transport side we need to make much more efficient automobiles before we encourage even more trips to the store (or anywhere else)

Although I think it is useful to look for ALL opportunities on the carbon front I think it makes far more sense to push for efficient data centers and power generation, rather than continued use of physical media which ultimately creates more physical waste (and carbon and other toxins through the end of life disposal)
 
Or brick and mortar shops. :D Come and buy physical games from us and save the world!!!
True.

And I bet they forgot to mention that keeping their stores at room temp. causes more pollution. But I digress. :D
 
I'll point out again that even when I've bought games retail recently, I've had to go online to download an update before playing, effectively being the worst of all possible scenarios, enviro-wise.
 
I'll point out again that even when I've bought games retail recently, I've had to go online to download an update before playing, effectively being the worst of all possible scenarios, enviro-wise.

You're a bad person and you should feel bad!!!

:D
 
You're a bad person and you should feel bad!!!

:D

Maybe they need to do a study on how much more efficient it is to return to our pre-internet days of patching from disc ... if they can argue that successfully I want whatever they are taking to make that scenario seem plausible :D :cool:
 
Indeed! Better yet, from floppies!!! Wolfenstein on 34,000 3.5" disks!!
 
Disk #27,216 has a bad sector. Call technical support to have them send out a new one.
 
They should for physical copies. I haven't used an optical disc in I don't know how long. (at least willingly)
Same here. Every time I buy any computer accessory, it always comes with a CD or DVD, but I never use it. I go to the manufacturer's website to get the latest driver, manual, etc.
 
Table 1 said:
Lower bound scenario (kWh/GB transferred)
Customer premise equipment (modems/routers) 0.3

Multiply by the proposed rate:
Internet access speeds average 19.47 megabits per second (Mbps) (EC 2012), with a download time of 0.11 hours per gigabyte (h/GB).
So my router and other network equipment downloads 9 GB per hour, but consumes 0.3 kWh per gigabyte, so it takes 2.7kWh per hour to run it. That means I must have a 2700 watt average power consumption during that time.

The Cisco 6000 series routers are designed for up to 256 terabits per second. It draws somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700W when run off DC power.

The Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite draws a maximum of 7W, and can route 1 gigabit per second.

This article doesn't add up.
 
I know plenty about the bees. But its not our job to police the bees.

In relation to my original post, "The planets not going anywhere!. We are! Pack your shit folks".

The earth doesn't share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children.

Why are we here?

Plastic. Asshole
 
The earth doesn't share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children.

I don't remember seeing a lot of polyurethane mines on Discovery channel ... maybe our Mother views plastic as her most troubled child (humans) making a mess in her well kept house right now ... she might be looking for foster parents for us as we speak :D

Why are we here?

Because the aliens left us here :p

Plastic. Asshole

I think the artificial asshole is our least needed medical advance as we have too many people who are artificial assholes already :cool:
 
Back
Top