I don't understand how this makes sense. The internet will always be on anyway, and speeds keep getting faster and faster so the carbon footprint won't be as big in the future. The infrastructure is laid out already. I don't see how that will be a bigger carbon footprint than manufacturing the discs, burning them, labelling, packaging, shipping from the warehouse to the distribution centers, then to the stores.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Study claims downloading games isn't eco-friendly, contested methodology
- Thread starter Raist
- Start date
PumpkinSpice
Banned
Here's why their study is totally flawed in one graph:
im with you. That bandwidth will be used no matter what.. add on top of that a trip to the store in your gas powered vehicle to buy the game and this article just seems ridiculous.
maquiladora
Member
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
included in the article. Disposal is negligible.
the journalist does, not the academics. Which is funny considering he could have just ctrl-c the thing.
quoting the article:
So yes, if you use a car that would be the case. (I don't see their average estimate on driving distance though, but oh well).
TheRagnCajun
Member
When you are using energy from the grid to distribute games, you are using whatever form of power generation the government chooses, i.e. nautral gas, solar, wind, nuclear. When you distribute games via. trucks, you are limited to what trucks use, combustion engines.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
one bit = one bit of information, and of required energy to transport it.
"speeds keep getting faster and faster". Multiply bits with speed.
There's your logical problem, cap'ain.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Well, in the UK, that is. UK has 0.508501975 kg CO2/kWh emissions for electricity production. I live in Sweden which has 0.023033883 kg CO2/kWh. Source: Electricity-specific emission factors for grid electricity (Matthew Brander et. al 2011).
Apply this to their data and instead for the 8.8GB game we have a lower bound of 0.10 and an upper bound of 0.36, as compared to the physical estimate of 1.20, meaning digital distribution within Sweden emits between 8.3% and 30% of what physical distribution does. The cutoff would be at somewhere between 29 and 106 GB. (Except you can't hold that much on a bluray.)
I, however, did not factor in differences in the quality and speed of Internet connections between the UK and Sweden.
That is, even if I buy all of their assumptions, which I don't really do. Still, I'll be sleeping sound tonight on my bed of digital games. Norweigans will have an even softer sleep. Americans may want to stay awake (but their bed time isn't for a while anyhow.)
Apply this to their data and instead for the 8.8GB game we have a lower bound of 0.10 and an upper bound of 0.36, as compared to the physical estimate of 1.20, meaning digital distribution within Sweden emits between 8.3% and 30% of what physical distribution does. The cutoff would be at somewhere between 29 and 106 GB. (Except you can't hold that much on a bluray.)
I, however, did not factor in differences in the quality and speed of Internet connections between the UK and Sweden.
That is, even if I buy all of their assumptions, which I don't really do. Still, I'll be sleeping sound tonight on my bed of digital games. Norweigans will have an even softer sleep. Americans may want to stay awake (but their bed time isn't for a while anyhow.)
Uhh. no. People are just shortsighted, selfish dickwads who don't give a fuck if their actions are destroying the planet and see very little effort in trying to find ways how they can live while spending less. You obviously have no idea how hard it is to get a research published. Sometimes stuff like this research get through and there are lesser quality publications that have worse quality control but most of the time if some research has shoddy premises, then no reputable publication will want to publish it.
Well that's just BS. Science tries to find plausible explanations but they very rarely state anything as the kind of facts that have no chance of being disproven, there's always room for error one way or the other and that's why everything is studied so thoroughly and they go deeper and deeper into a lot of study subjects.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
how meta
You're making a lot of assumptions about people in general with that first comment. Of course there are people like that but how can anyone who actually does care about keeping up with maintaining an eco-friendly lifestyle do so when new research is constantly proving and disproving previous research? I'm sure it'll make some people who used to care just not care anymore because they don't know what to believe. It's not exclusive to this type of research but all research.
Aren't you proving my point in the bolded? That's what I'm getting at. There's nothing wrong with undergoing research that could very well be disproven in the future because eventually it may lead to the truth that the researchers are searching for to begin with. My point being is when this is publicized as it being true when the research itself doesn't even state itself as truth. Most people don't read full publications of research let alone the whole thing. Hence, those crazy headline attention grabbers you see all the time.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Where can I get one of these snack-filled sofas?
well, there you go. I'm not a hipster for liking retro-styled indie games. I'm eco-friendly.
you can have mine for a 20. it's filled with popcorn and salted peanuts.
you can have mine for a 20. it's filled with popcorn and salted peanuts.
Jawmuncher
Member
Whatever you choose.
You'll hurt the earth.
You'll hurt the earth.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Yeah, we don't all eat Tea Cakes and Hob Nobs while gaming.
Hahaha!
Marky Mark
Member
The paper is less than 1.3GB, go ahead.
Are they only comparing the delivery to store to downloading? Or everything else that it takes to make and get a phyiscal game. Printing, boxing, materials, consumer driving to the store and back, etc. and on the other side as well as cost to build and maintain a networked infastructure?
This makes much more sense than the logic behind this "study".
Krappadizzle
Member
My thoughts too. That study is flawed big time.
CosmicQueso
Member
*Brought to you by the Video Game Retailers Association. Visit your local video game retailer... today!
Edit: I have no idea who funded this study.
Edit: I have no idea who funded this study.
DryvBy
Member
Such as losing the rights to play your games. Not being able to sell your games. Not being able to loan out your games. Game prices hardly every dropping in price.
Yes, so many.
RowdyReverb
Member
I was just about to ask who on earth would fund such a study.
Heh. I'm sure everyone claiming that this is "completely flawed" can provide a much better analysis. Seems like many didn't bother reading any of it too.
Well, there's no funding info, but I doubt it's retailers.
Well, there's no funding info, but I doubt it's retailers.
What?! I share games all the time with family. And there are sales every day on Steam and GMG with 20-25% off unreleased games.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Personally, the average price I've paid for a digital game this year is around $0.85, a little lower if you include mobile. As a result, I'm not super concerned about being able to recoup that.
They are probably leaving out a lot, which seems pretty much inevitable. One thing which doesn't seem to get mentioned is the on time it takes to install from a disc -- with the system quite possibly using more power during this time it could actually compensate for most of the power spent downloading. Then of course, there's background downloading, which they seem to at least mention and maybe account for in their study up to a point, but don't make it clear how that assumption is factored into their data.
One thing that really jumps out is that pretty much the entire environmental cost they calculate for a disc based game is based on the cost of the consumer traveling to buy the game.
For example, they set the overall cost for a disc game at 1.2 kg CO2 equivalents. But then they say that if the same consumer traveled specifically to buy a game, and not to also go shopping for ten other items, the cost would increase to 5.04! And if the consumer traveled by public transit, the total cost would decrease to .895.
So, if you think most people travel to a game store specifically to buy a game, the disc cost should actually be four or five times higher than what they calculate in the study.
If you think most people buy a game when they're already out because they're shopping for other things as well, the number becomes four or five times lower. Either way, it's enough to completely change the findings of the study.
As far as I can tell, they don't go into any detail on how they calculate what the average person does. They seem to have picked an arbitrary number -- that people are buying an average of ten things every time they go out to a game store and purchase a game. And then they divide the total environmental cost of driving to the game store by ten (I think?) because of the multitasking.
There's also this interesting paragraph relating to disc game distribution costs in the united states:
So, in parts of the world with different transport costs the data changes completely. They don't specify whether they're also thinking about the the added environmental cost for the consumers traveling to and from the game store in this paragraph, which as mentioned before makes up the majority of the overall disc cost in their model.
As mentioned by a couple people, rapidly increasing download speeds probably make data from 2010 counterproductive to think about at this point anyway. But I had fun reading it, thanks!
One thing that really jumps out is that pretty much the entire environmental cost they calculate for a disc based game is based on the cost of the consumer traveling to buy the game.
For example, they set the overall cost for a disc game at 1.2 kg CO2 equivalents. But then they say that if the same consumer traveled specifically to buy a game, and not to also go shopping for ten other items, the cost would increase to 5.04! And if the consumer traveled by public transit, the total cost would decrease to .895.
So, if you think most people travel to a game store specifically to buy a game, the disc cost should actually be four or five times higher than what they calculate in the study.
If you think most people buy a game when they're already out because they're shopping for other things as well, the number becomes four or five times lower. Either way, it's enough to completely change the findings of the study.
As far as I can tell, they don't go into any detail on how they calculate what the average person does. They seem to have picked an arbitrary number -- that people are buying an average of ten things every time they go out to a game store and purchase a game. And then they divide the total environmental cost of driving to the game store by ten (I think?) because of the multitasking.
There's also this interesting paragraph relating to disc game distribution costs in the united states:
So, in parts of the world with different transport costs the data changes completely. They don't specify whether they're also thinking about the the added environmental cost for the consumers traveling to and from the game store in this paragraph, which as mentioned before makes up the majority of the overall disc cost in their model.
As mentioned by a couple people, rapidly increasing download speeds probably make data from 2010 counterproductive to think about at this point anyway. But I had fun reading it, thanks!
This. Since I've gone to PC gaming last month I have bought over 75 games with the average being just over $1.50. That's about two console games at retail.
You seem like a great person. The earth thanks you.
edit: and the polar bears. Especially the coca-cola polar bears.
Like higher prices (unless you're on PC and/or wait 18 months for a decent console dd sale price).
Fucked up ownership rights
Bandwitdth caps
Service outtages
Can't sell or lend when done
SOUNDS GREAT!!!
Live in a modern country and not some shithole and these don't exist.
Krappadizzle
Member
Yup. The monster.
How can you live knowing those games may never drop to $0.84???
Pointing out problems is a part of working out solutions.
TwistedFate
Member
What. Have you heard of these things called steam or green man gaming?