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

Forums - Gaming - Surprise Digital Downloads Have Bigger Carbon Footprint Than Most Discs

baloofarsan on 04 September 2014
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:

And you are assuming I didn't -_-

If you read the article, you see that they make a lot of assumptions and estimates, which accounts to absolutely nothing. WIthout pure, factual numbers, this research might as well be flushed down the drain.

They use very specific parameters which are completely different for most people.

Now the two of us are in the small exclusive group that read it (together with its authors). I speed read it, as I did LCA analysis in school I pretty much knew what was in there. That is why I knew you had not read it as you asked for it to contain all the basic things you have in any such analysis.

LCA is very difficult and mostly academical. 

For further reading:    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment#Critiques



Around the Network
VanceIX on 04 September 2014
baloofarsan said:
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:

And you are assuming I didn't -_-

If you read the article, you see that they make a lot of assumptions and estimates, which accounts to absolutely nothing. WIthout pure, factual numbers, this research might as well be flushed down the drain.

They use very specific parameters which are completely different for most people.

Now the two of us are in the small exclusive group that read it (together with its authors). I speed read it, as I did LCA analysis in school I pretty much knew what was in there. That is why I knew you had not read it as you asked for it to contain all the basic things you have in any such analysis.

LCA is very difficult and mostly academical. 

For further reading:    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment#Critiques

I did completely read it after you singled out some of my points, and there are still many inconsistencies. Where does the article account for the shrink wrap that the games come in, or the printed manuals whlch are sometimes full of ink? How about the pollution generated from manufacturing all the plastic in the construction? Are you telling me that those don't do anything to the atmosphere? 

The article is riddled with baseless assumptions and inconsistencies. I honestly would not even blink if Gamestop sponsored this. 



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

baloofarsan on 04 September 2014
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:

And you are assuming I didn't -_-

If you read the article, you see that they make a lot of assumptions and estimates, which accounts to absolutely nothing. WIthout pure, factual numbers, this research might as well be flushed down the drain.

They use very specific parameters which are completely different for most people.

Now the two of us are in the small exclusive group that read it (together with its authors). I speed read it, as I did LCA analysis in school I pretty much knew what was in there. That is why I knew you had not read it as you asked for it to contain all the basic things you have in any such analysis.

LCA is very difficult and mostly academical. 

For further reading:    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment#Critiques

I did completely read it after you singled out some of my points, and there are still many inconsistencies. Where does the article account for the shrink wrap that the games come in, or the printed manuals whlch are sometimes full of ink? How about the pollution generated from manufacturing all the plastic in the construction? Are you telling me that those don't do anything to the atmosphere? 

The article is riddled with baseless assumptions and inconsistencies. I honestly would not even blink if Gamestop sponsored this. 

Most of the things you mentioned are covered by previous LCAs, there are A LOT of LCA analysis done in universitys all over the world.



burninmylight on 05 September 2014
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:
VanceIX said:
baloofarsan said:

And you are assuming I didn't -_-

If you read the article, you see that they make a lot of assumptions and estimates, which accounts to absolutely nothing. WIthout pure, factual numbers, this research might as well be flushed down the drain.

They use very specific parameters which are completely different for most people.

Now the two of us are in the small exclusive group that read it (together with its authors). I speed read it, as I did LCA analysis in school I pretty much knew what was in there. That is why I knew you had not read it as you asked for it to contain all the basic things you have in any such analysis.

LCA is very difficult and mostly academical. 

For further reading:    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment#Critiques

I did completely read it after you singled out some of my points, and there are still many inconsistencies. Where does the article account for the shrink wrap that the games come in, or the printed manuals whlch are sometimes full of ink? How about the pollution generated from manufacturing all the plastic in the construction? Are you telling me that those don't do anything to the atmosphere? 

The article is riddled with baseless assumptions and inconsistencies. I honestly would not even blink if Gamestop sponsored this. 

"YOU QUESTION THE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH, THEREFORE YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO READ IT AT ALL!! I READ EVERY SINGLE WORD, THEREFORE ONLY MY OPINION IS VALID!"



burninmylight on 05 September 2014
mjk45 said:
burninmylight said:
VanceIX said:
Did they take into account the gas needed just to get to GameStop to pick up the game, or the extra energy needed to power the disc drive?

Not that I really care, tbh. Really anything will affect the environment in some way, its not like you're dumping sludge into rivers >_>


Or all the fuel used to ship the games across the oceans and/or country, and waste produced from the boxes and cases to store them in, along with manuals and advertisements (and the resources needed for said boxes, cases and paper). So many factors left out. I don't see how this study can be considered valid.

Exactly , we don't know what parameters these researchers used  did they go all the way back down the production line to find out the actual foot print and go forward to disposal and on the other side did they just calculate just the cost of download or did they include server cost and there are unknowns like what % of people for what ever reason download the same game more than once .


And what happens to those tens of millions of unsold, returned or resold games? I'm pretty sure they don't just poof and disappear. They either become waste, get stuck in storage hell, or get recycled and reused, which still costs money, energy and resources to execute.



Around the Network
the2real4mafol on 05 September 2014

If you have shitty internet it kind of makes sense. It simply requires more power to download a game from a server then it does to make a physical copy and go buy it.

But that might be different with the new consoles. PS4 especially downloads stuff very quickly.

I'm not sure if to take the carbon footprint thing seriously or not. That can't be the only thing to cause climate change.



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030