How many hours do you use your consoles each week? | |||
| 40+ hours | 7 | 33.33% | |
| 30-40 hours | 3 | 14.29% | |
| 20-30 hours | 2 | 9.52% | |
| 10-20 hours | 9 | 42.86% | |
| Total: | 21 | ||
Largely ignored in that video, gotta love Nintendo for saving the world.
| Console Consumption | Watts |
| Nintendo Switch | 10-18 |
| PS4 Pro | 75-160 |
| PS4 Slim | 55-110 |
| PS4 | 90-150 |
| Xbox One X | 65-180 |
| Xbox One S | 35-90 |
| Xbox One | 70-120 |
| Wii U | 35 |
| PS3 Slim | 85 |
| PS3 Original | 190 |
| Xbox 360 S | 90 |
| Xbox 360 Original | 180 |
| Wii | 40 |
Nintendo Switch also doesn't need a tv! Mobile gaming for the win, phones use even less! (But pollute a lot more with yearly updates)
Gaming laptops use less than consoles as well without requiring an extra screen.
Nope it isn't, next.
Unless you change the title to "does games have environmental effects?" Because it is very far from ruining it.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
konnichiwa said:
Really? If whole the world was so abusive against our planet like Canadians are we would all be living on ships =p
Rankings by per capita emissions /CO2 emissions (per capita)
|
Per capita isn’t as important as total population. Motorbikes and cars and manufacturing industry is the main causes...not airplane use. And nm China and their use of coal
. I’m saying video games in western countries are a drop in the bucket compared to the big causes.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
| sales2099 said: Per capita isn’t as important as total population. |
Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.
Shadow1980 said:
I thought I remembered consoles specifically not using a lot of electricity. Your old incandescent light bulbs typically use around 40-100 watts, so even an Xbox One X at peak power consumption only uses as much electricity as two or three old-style light bulbs. Even if you averaged, say, 6 hours of play time per day, that's still a very small portion of the typical household's total power consumption. |
Save the world, one light bulb at a time 
| SvennoJ said: Nintendo Switch also doesn't need a tv! Mobile gaming for the win, phones use even less! (But pollute a lot more with yearly updates) Gaming laptops use less than consoles as well without requiring an extra screen. |
I agree wholeheartedly, mobile gaming for the win 
Conina said:
Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me. |
Depends on analysis. If we have a 1.2B country with 1B people living in extreme poverty in the rural area then they will drop the average a lot. But since all comparisons tend to be average to population then this one also being per capita is ok.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Conina said:
Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me. |
Who said this had to be fair? Total pollution per country is ultimately a far more accurate number then per capita.
Like Canada is only about 35 million, even if the country is horrible per capita, it’s ultimately a drop in the global bucket
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
Conina said:
Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me. |
Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall.
In that regard, China is the biggest offender, whilst the likes of Europe are going extremely clean.
However the flip side is... China has the most green energy and is investing the most while still having an insatiable appetite for coal.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
Pemalite said:
Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall. |
China is also making all our toys and clothes and recycling our waste...
Per capita is indeed not fair, the actual CO2 footprint of the average Chinese is much lower, while those in Europe and NA are much higher.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
