135 hours in 2 weeks.  That's some dedication and a nice completion.  I put off my start on it for this weekend coming up.  Installed a new projector today and still playing with some of the settings, but I'm gonna be playing Origins on it for its christening. Tested for lag using Horizon 5 and I'm at 19 ms.  Best I've ever got on a projector. 

@Ryuu96 To add to your post to @Machiavellian, Energy use by data centers has been fairly constant. The gains in efficiency have so far been able to keep up with the increase in demand. See here https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-10-13-gaming-downloads-climate-crisis. The question is, how long can this keep up before we reach the limits or diminishing returns of more efficient hardware. Energy use for crypto mining is going up, and will go up exponentially when the mainstream gets into it.

There is one big difference between the two though. Crypto mining goes on 24/7 while data centers ebb and flow with demand and can make better use of 'excess' energy. Also servers in data centers tend to last 3 to 5 years. Crypto centers replace their hardware every 18 months, generating a lot more E-waste.

Both downloading and crypto mining are bad, but let's compare:

Transferring 1GB of data produces 3kg of CO2
https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irresponsible-web-development-contribute-to-global-warming/

An average Bitcoin transaction has a size of 670 bytes on the Bitcoin blockchain, representing an estimated carbon footprint of 369.49 kg CO2
https://www.forbes.com/sites/philippsandner/2021/11/19/bitcoin-co2-emissions-from-an-investor-perspective-and-how-to-compensate-them/?sh=1d55d5608c1c

Thus one NFT passing hands is equivalent to downloading a 123 GB game.
Now imagine that for every micro transaction in future games, you essentially have to download the entire game again, over and over.

However this is not a case of what is worse. Gaming replaces other, potentially far more environmentally unfriendly activities.
While offline gaming can produce as little as 0.08kg of CO2 per hour.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/if-gaming-is-an-environmental-nightmare-then-so-is-hiking

Anyway gaming is better than streaming videos (unless cloud gaming ofcourse)
Streaming is more efficient depending on the time played and download size. (roughly 10GB equals 2 hours of cloud gaming)
Physical games can have a lower carbon footprint than digital downloads, depending on how many times a game gets (re)installed. (128 GB is the cross over point)
And of course it depends what you game on: Switch < Laptop < Console < Gaming PC

And? GPUs are in high demand but why should I blame NFTs for that instead of the companies that manufacture too few GPUs or their poor recycling efforts.

When lots of people commute to work by car, I'm not blaming them for high gas prices the next time I'm driving to my vacation destination.

So one is more bad then the other which means you just did what gamers do, you choose the evil that supports what you like to do.  Meaning each and every day, Google, MS, Amazon Netflix you name it are creating more and more server farms around the world that continue to run 24/7 as demand continue to increase.  In other words to continue to serve gamers and streamers habits, those same services and carbon footprint is not going down they continue to increase.  I doubt you or anyone else is going to stop downloading , streaming or playing your games anytime soon but you sure will get on that soapbox concerning things you do not consume or do.

Of course one is worse than the other. For example, driving 10 miles on fossil fuel consuming car to beat up homeless people is worse than driving 200 miles on the same car to feed the homeless.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of term "whataboutism" but it does fit perfectly to your argument.

This is what I am talking about.  You state this does not effect you but then you go into this future world where you believe it will.  Is this no different then the arguments you have made against the same people that do the same thing with Gamepass.  The only difference here is that Gamepass is something you support so you defend against those same fears people have mentioned concerning where MS could go with it. Its the same thing with anything, people live in this fear of what could happen, well when that times comes then its time to do something.

Yes, Quartz is the dumbest crap to come out and I am positive it will fail just as quick because it offers absolutely nothing to the gamer.  None of the items represent a unique item which means that Quarts is using the NFT as a buzzword then actually as a unique digital content.  The difference is that I am fine with Ubi coming out with this junk.  The reason why is because, poor garbage laid out plans need to fail and fail hard. 

Now what I do see that will happen is when a company allow you to purchase digital assets, that you totally own, that is unique and cannot be copied or represented by the company and that can be used by you in whatever form you like.  Meaning that you totally own the work, can use it on your stream channel, Youtube videos.  You have rights to the animation everything.  

The thing is, how Stalker is using NFT does not effect anything, so I do not care how they want to sell their promotional digital content.  The thing is NFT isn't going anywhere anytime soon so its best to let the industry know where to draw the line.  Some promotional skin outside of a game, fine.  Some BS system like Quartz, just do not use it.

Yes, all the companies I named say they want to reduce their carbon footprint and the word want is just that.  As far as them actually doing it well, no.  It makes for good PR though and make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as long as they say they are going to do something.

Last but not least, I do not believe NFT or even cryptocurrency is a scam.  There are a lot of legitimate uses for it but for gaming in general and the current way its used, yes I agree its useless.  With that said, might as well let it get fleshed out because if it is a fad then let the fad come and go.

There's literally no way this is true.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines

this article state that the figure of 1.6kg per half hour of netflix content is overblown up to 90 times.

It also state the much more realistic figure of 36g of co2 per hour of streaming video. and that figure include the energy used by your device for you to consume that content. Without factoring in the device a 1hour stream of 4k content (which is around 7GB for Netflix) only produce about 15g of co2

this is literally 1400x smaller than the 3kg by 1GB transfer stated by your article.

Edit: if you want to calculated your emission there's a calculator at the end of the article which take into account the device you use, the bitrate of the video, the network and your country for a more accurate picture. 

Maybe it is over.

Actually no it does not.  What I am saying is people always talk the talk but do they walk the walk.  People will crusade about things only concerning the things they themselves do not do but when its put up or shut up to change their own habits, well then they talk about at least this is worse then what I am doing.  That is what I am talking about.  What I am saying, if you are not living that life, then do not go around trying to preach to others.  Its easy on the net to preach about environmental issues because no one can see how you are living your life.  You can crusade about cryptocurrency and people running their machines with their 3090 GPUs and latest Intel/AMD CPU all the while you are constanting download, streaming playing games running everything within your house constantly, driving everywhere when you could walk or ride a bike.  Consuming every last drink that comes in a plastic bottle you name it.  People talk the talk a lot but do they really actually make any changes themselves.

Except it really isn't the same as game pass. Concept of GP is from stuff like Netflix, Spotify etc which many people already use and had positive experience with. They're usually good value too.

NFT on the other hand is already being used in ponzi schemes and scams. And it's basically a next step of mtx, a concept that can be good but is constantly pushed to be predatory and damaging to players. 

And it's not like some worries about GP aren't legit. I would not want stuff locked behind GP subs for example. Microsoft has made it clear so far this isn't something they intend to do and it wouldn't make much sense anyway, so there isn't much reason for concern.

So in summary, GP came from a good place, NFT doesn't.