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

Forums - Gaming - Manufacture and shipping of physical games is "100 times more carbon-intensive" than digital, new study finds

EricHiggin said:

This is extremely alarming.
We need to put a stop to future physical media asap.
And on that green environmental note, just imagine how much worse future physical hardware is for the planet...
We need to stop next gen hardware from ever being shipped, manufactured, heck even designed, for the good of us all !!!

Me : I wonder what my buddy Russell thinks about all these physical supremacists and their lack of urgency in this catastrophic situation?



PS1   - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.

PS2  - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.

PS3   - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.

PS4   - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.

PRO  -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.

PS5   - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.

PRO  -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.

Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Someone did that math in a thread years ago. It was something like every single PS4 game taking up one football field stacked to the ceiling. I forget. I'm tired now and dont' feel like doing more math. Anyway, it was also a drop in the ocean compared to everything else people pollute with. 

I believe that was me. I've done the math before on multiple occasions when someone brought up plastic waste in regards to video games.

Even if every video game disc ever sold worldwide was thrown away, the resulting pile would fit into the average suburban residential lot. Let's say there's been six billion discs sold between the PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, Wii, 360, and XBO. A standard optical disc has a volume of approximately 13.57 cm³, so if you melted them all down and formed them into a solid cube, said cube would be a bit over 43 meters/140 feet per edge. That would fit in my back yard. In the U.S. alone, all the garbage tossed in one year amounts to a cube 805 meters tall. So, even if every game disc ever made over the past 30 years was thrown out, it would amount to less than 0.02% of the U.S.'s annual garbage output. They'd take up just a tiny sliver of a single landfill. If you tossed all the cases, that would take up over 20 times as much space, but that's still nothing compared to the total amount of trash produced from all sources. This is an extreme scenario, obviously, as relatively few physical games are just thrown in the garbage.

The amount of waste produced through the purchase of physical games is vastly overstated. It's a tiny drop in the bucket.

Now if you're talking about plastic consumption, the combined weight of those six billion discs, cases included, would be about 560,000 tons. Again, that's what was used over the course of nearly 30 years. The world produced about 460 million tons of plastic in 2019, and probably around 10 billion tons of the stuff since plastics have been a thing. So, physical video games are again just a tiny drop in the bucket. All entertainment media going full digital won't even a make a dent in global plastic production & consumption.

Going full-digital with our media isn't going to do squat to save the world, and trying to guilt-trip people for wanting to actually own their movies, games, books, albums, etc., is more "blame the consumer" bullshit. Two-thirds of our CO2 emissions in the U.S. are from transportation and electricity generation. We need our power to come from renewables, with nuclear as at least a supplementary stopgap for the next couple of decades. We need total electrification of our mechanical transportation, and beyond just that we really ought to be moving away from our dependence on automobiles (EVs are less bad than gas-powered cars, but they're cars and therefore still very bad) and moving towards a system focused on walking, cycling, and mass transit (note for the reading comprehension-impaired: that doesn't mean "ban all cars"). Our problems with climate weren't created by poor decisions by consumers. They were created by poor government policy, policy influenced by heavy lobbying by fossil fuel and automobile companies. If just the U.S. by itself got 90% of its electricity from nuclear for the past 50 years and we never developed automobile dependency after WW2, we probably wouldn't even be having a conversation about climate change.

I clicked agree on with this, but I have to state for the record I do not believe Nuclear power is safe or cost-effective. Nuclear waste cannot be stored safely due to the extremely long time that it takes to become safe. Future generations will accidentally or intentionally uncover nuclear waste. Otherwise this entire post is on point. And this may sound really greedy, but if I have to poison people 200 years in the future with nuclear waste or suffer through extreme climate change, then I choose the nuclear waste. Ideally, we should just focus on renewables that are safe like Solar, Wind, and Wave power.



Pemalite said:



I still refuse to give up physical. - When I can't buy physical with consoles is the day I am strictly a 100% PC gamer.


I'm not a fan of PC gaming. But I just have to agree with this wholeheartedly. In a world where all consoles are digital-only boxes, I'm gaming on PC. 



Wonder who the biggest polluter on Earth is today?



SvennoJ said:

While I don't disagree that vegans are mostly hypocrites, there are vast differences in the type of meat and produce:





FWIW, per capita beef consumption has trended downward over the past 50 years, at least here in the U.S. While there has been a slight uptick from the 60-year lows of 2014-15, 2024 consumption was still down 37.2% from the 1976 peak of 94 pounds per person. I probably consume at most half the current national average and I feel like that's plenty. Most of the meat I eat is chicken and seafood. Because of how personally and culturally profound food is, I don't expect anybody to completely give up meat if they don't want to (and I haven't) and I would object to governments forcing people to give it up, but we could certain stand to eat less red meat, the worst of the bunch from an environmental perspective.

Pemalite said:


I still refuse to give up physical. - When I can't buy physical with consoles is the day I am strictly a 100% PC gamer.

Unless something changes in U.S. copyright/IP law that makes digital copies the property of the purchaser, then if consoles ditch physical entirely then I'm just done with video games entirely.

Cerebralbore101 said:

I clicked agree on with this, but I have to state for the record I do not believe Nuclear power is safe or cost-effective. Nuclear waste cannot be stored safely due to the extremely long time that it takes to become safe. Future generations will accidentally or intentionally uncover nuclear waste. Otherwise this entire post is on point. And this may sound really greedy, but if I have to poison people 200 years in the future with nuclear waste or suffer through extreme climate change, then I choose the nuclear waste. Ideally, we should just focus on renewables that are safe like Solar, Wind, and Wave power.

Nuclear isn't perfect and has its own problems, but it's still better than fossil fuels. Potential damage from waste containment failure is localized, compared to fossil fuel pollution which affects the whole planet. Nuclear is still far less dangerous and polluting than any fossil fuel, and it's not even close. It is worth pointing out that if you take Chernobyl out of the equation (because that was the result of Soviet incompetence) more people have probably died falling off of roofs installing solar panels that have ever been killed, directly or indirectly, by nuclear power plants.

Hopefully there's sufficient storage solutions for renewables (which are mostly intermittent in nature) so that the issue of baseline generation is solved quickly enough to where we don't have to worry about it. But if that's decades away, then we should still consider nuclear as a stopgap. When several countries discontinued nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, they replaced that capacity with fossil fuels, and that's going to cause far more deaths and pollution than those nuclear plants ever would. Humans suck at risk assessment, though, and radiation scares the shit out of people in ways that, say, automobile exhaust doesn't.

Of course, even an increase in demand for large batteries for electricity storage will put increased demand on other types of resources, with all the extraction and potential conflicts that entails. There may be no perfect solutions, but anything else we have the technology for right now is better than slow-roasting our planet through continued use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and transportation fuel.



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

Art by Hunter B

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").