Apparently one study is claiming that
downloading games has a larger carbon footprint than buying the physical media... To whic
h I call
FUD.
1. It only covers PS3, and thus assumes that download of games can never happen as a background task.
2. It warns that games are growing larger, but just kind of handwaves the idea that data transmission is getting more efficient.
Also, they're seriously using a number of 1.46kWh/GB of data?
BULLSHIT! Even at the cheapest
industiral electricity rates in the US, that would still be $0.09, and that's a lot cheaper than the rates I found for the UK. Why is $0.09 worth of electricity for a GB of data unbelievable? Because
Netflix said, back in 2012 the cost of delivering 1GB of data is less than a cent. There's no way that delivering 1GB of data could be using 9¢ worth of electricity but cost only 1¢.
They concluded that over the lifecycle of a game, most of the carbon footprint went to the electricity to play it, but that a physical distribution added 1.3 kg CO2-eq while downloading added up to 8.0 kg CO2-eq. That's ridiculous. They conclude that downloading a large game could be nearly equivalent to using a gallon of gas driving around in a car... above and beyond the carbon necessary to press the disc, ship it from Austria to the UK, then have customers drive out to get it from their local store.
But, at the same time, they admit that if someone goes out to specifically buy a game, and doesn't buy anything else, then a 20GB download is equivalent to driving there? But they only talk about that in the "sensitivity analysis" and not in their final conclusion.
Holy shit, I can't stand the FUD any longer. This is just so much bullshit. I'm done.
