By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 will be a "greener" console than PS4

curl-6 said:

Sony has announced its commitment to a UN environmental initiative with the gaming industry, "Playing for the Planet", and as part of their commitment aims to make PS5 more "green" by consuming less electricity than the PS4, thus saving on emissions.

I hope they are talking about the og PS4Pro or many people will be disappointed by the performance of the PS5.

This article says it's about stand-by power consumption.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/23/20879422/playstation-5-standy-power-usage

Also energy can be created renewably nowadays, no need to "save" an infinite resource.

Last edited by numberwang - on 04 October 2019

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
curl-6 said:


It just doesn't seem remotely comparable to me though. What is so "toxic", so offensive, about the idea that our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, deserve good living conditions?

It's political because if we are destroying the environment, then we are potentially dooming future generations, and in the most severe cases suggested, like runaway greenhouse effect, the right to life. That ties directly into politics.

Something people would have to ask themselves, like the type of people who believe 'saving' and 'protecting' the environment is absolutely necessary, for reasons such as future generations, is what about abortion? If a mother has the right to decide if what's inside her lives or dies, based on how it will impact her future, then men and woman surely have the right to decide how they want to treat the environment. If a woman is willing to end a potential life one way, then a woman or man should be able to ruin a small piece of the environment, because it's their body, their mind, their future, and their choice.

Now while you can say others and future generations could be harmed by destroying a small portion of the environment yourself, killing a fetus could also fall under that. That fetus could be the best thing that ever happened to someone, or humanity overall, yet nobody will ever know if it's not allowed to live up top it's full potential and make it's own choices. To say we know exactly what will happen to the environment if we keep doing what we're going would be dishonest. The smartest individuals have used the data to come up with predictions many times, and have never come close the the actual results, while almost always overshooting by a mile.

If we don't know what a fetus will become, which means whatever could happen if it's born doesn't matter if the mother feels it will negatively impact her life, then the same would apply to the environment. If we don't know exactly what will happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, then the future doesn't matter as much as the people who choose to emit CO2, because of how it would negatively impact them if they didn't or couldn't.

What if that fetus is the next Einstein and Musk rolled into one, who will easily solve man made nuclear fusion, also solving climate change for the most part, along with poverty? Should we take the risk or let people decide for themselves?

You've lost me here I'm afraid, comparing Sony promoting sustainability to the totally separate issue of abortion just seems to be jumping the shark to be frank.



curl-6 said:


It just doesn't seem remotely comparable to me though. What is so "toxic", so offensive, about the idea that our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, deserve good living conditions?

Some people wonder the same about what is so 'wrong' in promoting Christianity but I still see that you're trying to avoid my question but whatever man if you don't want to answer it then I won't press you any farther ... 

Just because 'you' who personally don't see it as being political doesn't that others don't ... 

Seeing as how the green movement is rooted in one of the more extremist groups such as anti-industrialists, anti-advanced technology AKA guys who usually hate factories which have been the lifeblood of human civilization and prosperity for over hundreds of years why on earth do you believe that people should subscribe against their own obvious self-interests like this ? 

There's a very good reason why 'green' parties are not of the mainstream governing view since promoting needless austerity isn't exactly a very popular idea among people around the world. The Greens are what anyone would practically deem as the 'fringe' groups ... 

It is for politically symbolic reasons why many people don't want to subscribe to the ideology of such fringe groups because most people don't see them as being in the right thus don't want to acknowledge that if they're ever right ... 

Nazi's are dangerous since their imperialistic view of the world will cause wars. Green's are dangerous since their known for promoting deindustrialization which will lead to massive austerity ... 

Imagine this, being 'green' is like being progressive except instead you'll take a pro-austerity stance by limiting or outright banning most means of production which is going to make EVERYONE poor in the end! (not every liberal is on board with the idea of killing factories) 

Even after explaining everything, if you can't understand the dangers of tying oneself to an ideology like this then I can't help you at all ... 

Most people just don't see being 'green' as something to be 'normal' and I'm trying to get this to figure into your thought process because being green is definitely one of the more political things out there since some audiences may just not realize it especially in very progressive bubbles like video game related forums where groupthink runs very rampant ... 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 05 October 2019

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:


It just doesn't seem remotely comparable to me though. What is so "toxic", so offensive, about the idea that our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, deserve good living conditions?

Some people wonder the same about what is so 'wrong' in promoting Christianity but I still see that you're trying to avoid my question but whatever man if you don't want to answer it then I won't press you any farther ... 

Just because 'you' who personally don't see it as being political doesn't that others don't ... 

Seeing as how the green movement is rooted in one of the more extremist groups such as anti-industrialists, anti-advanced technology AKA guys who usually hate factories which have been the lifeblood of human civilization and prosperity for over hundreds of years why on earth do you believe that people should subscribe against their own obvious self-interests like this ? 

There's a very good reason why 'green' parties are not of the mainstream governing view since promoting needless austerity isn't exactly a very popular idea among people around the world. The Greens are what anyone would practically deem as the 'fringe' groups ... 

It is for politically symbolic reasons why many people don't want to subscribe to the ideology of such fringe groups because most people don't see them as being in the right thus don't want to acknowledge that if they're ever right ... 

Nazi's are dangerous since their imperialistic view of the world will cause wars. Green's are dangerous since their known for promoting deindustrialization which will lead to massive austerity ... 

Imagine this, being 'green' is like being progressive except instead you'll take a pro-austerity stance by limiting or outright banning most means of production which is going to make EVERYONE poor in the end! (not every liberal is on board with the idea of killing factories) 

Even after explaining everything, if you can't understand the dangers of tying oneself to an ideology like this then I can't help you at all ... 

Most people just don't see being 'green' as something to be 'normal' and I'm trying to get this to figure into your thought process because being green is definitely one of the more political things out there since some audiences may just not realize it especially in very progressive bubbles like video game related forums where groupthink runs very rampant ... 

Equating sustainability and environmental responsibility as a whole to folks who want to ban technology is like equating all Christians to the Ku Klux Klan or all white people to Nazis, it's ridiculous to reduce any ideology or demographic to only its most extreme members. Besides which, you really think Sony, a technology company, are going to promote a "technology should be banned" narrative? Seriously?

And honestly, reading your posts, you really don't seem "apolitical" or "centrist" as you claim to be.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 05 October 2019

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:


It just doesn't seem remotely comparable to me though. What is so "toxic", so offensive, about the idea that our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, deserve good living conditions?

Some people wonder the same about what is so 'wrong' in promoting Christianity but I still see that you're trying to avoid my question but whatever man if you don't want to answer it then I won't press you any farther ... 

Just because 'you' who personally don't see it as being political doesn't that others don't ... 

Seeing as how the green movement is rooted in one of the more extremist groups such as anti-industrialists, anti-advanced technology AKA guys who usually hate factories which have been the lifeblood of human civilization and prosperity for over hundreds of years why on earth do you believe that people should subscribe against their own obvious self-interests like this ? 

There's a very good reason why 'green' parties are not of the mainstream governing view since promoting needless austerity isn't exactly a very popular idea among people around the world. The Greens are what anyone would practically deem as the 'fringe' groups ... 

It is for politically symbolic reasons why many people don't want to subscribe to the ideology of such fringe groups because most people don't see them as being in the right thus don't want to acknowledge that if they're ever right ... 

Nazi's are dangerous since their imperialistic view of the world will cause wars. Green's are dangerous since their known for promoting deindustrialization which will lead to massive austerity ... 

Imagine this, being 'green' is like being progressive except instead you'll take a pro-austerity stance by limiting or outright banning most means of production which is going to make EVERYONE poor in the end! (not every liberal is on board with the idea of killing factories) 

Even after explaining everything, if you can't understand the dangers of tying oneself to an ideology like this then I can't help you at all ... 

Most people just don't see being 'green' as something to be 'normal' and I'm trying to get this to figure into your thought process because being green is definitely one of the more political things out there since some audiences may just not realize it especially in very progressive bubbles like video game related forums where groupthink runs very rampant ... 

But Sony used the word "greener" without referring to the green movements,it is just you that fantasized a link between them.

Bolded: You are the one that should figure out that most people can differentiate different meanings from "greener"in how it is used in context and in this case it does not have to be political and connecting it to progressive extremists is a tiny bit ridiculous.

Also this forum is not a very progressive bubble,this particular one is very mixed on the political scale.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

Equating sustainability and environmental responsibility as a whole to folks who want to ban technology is like equating all Christians to the Ku Klux Klan or all white people to Nazis, it's ridiculous to reduce any ideology or demographic to only its most extreme members. Besides which, you really think Sony, a technology company, are going to promote a "technology should be banned" narrative? Seriously?

Considering that the most pro-active supporters of this so called "sustainability and environmental responsibility" are mostly based on fringe groups, why not actually base this on real world political support ?

@Bold The world is full of contradictions so there's no reason to believe that corporations are actually self-consistent ... 

curl-6 said:

And honestly, reading your posts, you really don't seem "apolitical" or "centrist" as you claim to be.

Seeing as how I've NEVER voted in my entire life, I think I'm at least worth a fair assessment since I don't participate in what are the most political events ... 

Immersiveunreality said:

But Sony used the word "greener" without referring to the green movements,it is just you that fantasized a link between them.

Wouldn't put it past Sony that they're actually a part of the green movement given their past political blunders like censoring games or sending political messages through their games ... 

There's more evidence to suggest that Sony is acting political here rather than not ... 

Immersiveunreality said:

Bolded: You are the one that should figure out that most people can differentiate different meanings from "greener"in how it is used in context and in this case it does not have to be political and connecting it to progressive extremists is a tiny bit ridiculous.

Not really because Sony are probably promoting this in bad faith ...

Immersiveunreality said:

Also this forum is not a very progressive bubble,this particular one is very mixed on the political scale.

You wish, this forum is filled with partisan hacks nearly everywhere ... 

This forum has never mirrored the real world consensus and it never will ... 

This is why supporting being 'green' is practically only for the most fringe groups in the real world but I'm not surprised to see pro-nature progressives here being overrepresented ... 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 05 October 2019

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Equating sustainability and environmental responsibility as a whole to folks who want to ban technology is like equating all Christians to the Ku Klux Klan or all white people to Nazis, it's ridiculous to reduce any ideology or demographic to only its most extreme members. Besides which, you really think Sony, a technology company, are going to promote a "technology should be banned" narrative? Seriously?

Considering that the most pro-active supporters of this so called "sustainability and environmental responsibility" are mostly based on fringe groups, why not actually base this on real world political support ?

@Bold The world is full of contradictions so there's no reason to believe that corporations are actually self-consistent ... 

curl-6 said:

And honestly, reading your posts, you really don't seem "apolitical" or "centrist" as you claim to be.

Seeing as how I've NEVER voted in my entire life, I think I'm at least worth a fair assessment since I don't participate in what are the most political events ... 

Immersiveunreality said:

But Sony used the word "greener" without referring to the green movements,it is just you that fantasized a link between them.

Wouldn't put it past Sony that they're actually a part of the green movement given their past political blunders like censoring games or sending political messages through their games ... 

There's more evidence to suggest that Sony is acting political here rather than not ... 

Immersiveunreality said:

Bolded: You are the one that should figure out that most people can differentiate different meanings from "greener"in how it is used in context and in this case it does not have to be political and connecting it to progressive extremists is a tiny bit ridiculous.

Not really because Sony are probably promoting this in bad faith ...

Immersiveunreality said:

Also this forum is not a very progressive bubble,this particular one is very mixed on the political scale.

You wish, this forum is filled with partisan hacks nearly everywhere ... 

This forum has never mirrored the real world consensus and it never will ... 

This is why supporting being 'green' is practically only for the most fringe groups in the real world but I'm not surprised to see pro-nature progressives here being overrepresented ... 

You claim to be apolitical, yet your posts suggest a person of strong political convictions; for example you seem to strongly dislike "progressive" policies and you equate supporting sustainability with extremism. 

Last edited by curl-6 - on 05 October 2019

vivster said:
Nice marketing piece. Sadly says as little as it means.

Thats true.... a better title could have done it too.

"PS5 will have lower standby & idle power usage."

That woulda done it.
How the heck this thread has run this many postings or pages, is anyones guess.
Just like how anyone can get rilled up by them reduceing its powerdraw when not gameing? it makes no sense.

Theres actually people against this, because they think its some agenda that will effect their gameing experiance.



curl-6 said:

You claim to be apolitical, yet your posts suggest a person of strong political convictions; for example you seem to strongly dislike "progressive" policies and you equate supporting sustainability with extremism. 

I don't like either progressivism or traditionalism, period so don't even try to characterize me based on either since I hate politics for the most part and I think both sides are extremely cancerous ... (it's why I don't prefer anything to be political loaded) 

Y'know what, let's skip the BS and get straight to the underlying point ... 

Curl, are you biased towards progressive policies by any chance ? (do not dodge this) 

I can't seem to tell because it sounds like you're totally nervous of revealing your stance in fear so that won't be able to argue from nonpartisan perspective anymore ... 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

You claim to be apolitical, yet your posts suggest a person of strong political convictions; for example you seem to strongly dislike "progressive" policies and you equate supporting sustainability with extremism. 

I don't like either progressivism or traditionalism, period so don't even try to characterize me based on either since I hate politics for the most part and I think both sides are extremely cancerous ... (it's why I don't prefer anything to be political loaded) 

Y'know what, let's skip the BS and get straight to the underlying point ... 

Curl, are you biased towards progressive policies by any chance ? (do not dodge this) 

I can't seem to tell because it sounds like you're totally nervous of revealing your stance in fear so that won't be able to argue from nonpartisan perspective anymore ... 

I've never claimed to be apolitical, I lean progressive on most issues and I don't try to hide this. My position has been from the beginning not that I am apolitical, but that that something as basic as insuring a healthy world for future generations shouldn't even be a left vs right issue, and the fact that it's even considered "political" or "partisan" is insanity.