Sony's PS5 and Microsoft's Xbox Join the Fight Against Climate Change (cnet.com) 66
Both Sony and Microsoft on Monday committed to making their future video game consoles better for the planet. The two console makers laid out their plans alongside the UN Climate Summit as part of the Playing for the Planet Alliance. From a report: Microsoft will start a pilot program to create 825,000 carbon neutral Xbox consoles, the company said in a press release Sunday. It said these will be the first video game consoles to achieve that goal. Sony will focus on the upcoming PlayStation 5's energy consumption. The Japanese company will improve the next console's low-power suspend mode to make it more efficient than the PlayStation 4. Sony said if 1 million users make use of the PS5's energy-saving feature, it'll save the equivalent of the average electricity use of 1,000 US homes. Sony will also reassess its carbon footprint in its gaming service and data centers. The Playing for the Planet Alliance is a joint effort among the console manufacturers, publishers, developers and Twitch through various eco-friendly initiatives, spreading awareness, and reducing carbon emissions and power consumption.
Lets see (Score:1)
How many more fucking stories we can post today about climate change
Re: (Score:3)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Re: (Score:2)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
That must be it. People are burned out on the hysteria. I'm getting a hint of a feeling that there's a lot of people that don't want to hear about it any more.
Bring solutions, because people are tired of hearing about the problem. Bring real solutions, not a new energy saving mode on game consoles.
Real solutions are interesting. The problem became uninteresting a long time ago.
Re:Lets see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
There is a really easy, proven, ready-to-roll solution available right now - it's called nuclear power. But we can't have that, because it works, it's reliable, doesn't come and go with the weather, and doesn't provide for wholesale takeover of the economy (via deep regulation of energy) and thus cannot be allowed.
That sounds about right. If we have nuclear power then we might realize that we don't need solar panels and offshore windmills. If we don't put up more solar panels then global warming will come and eat us in our sleep.
All you little children need to behave or else global warming will get us all. Make sure you sort your trash in the right bin like a good little OCD child. After you've done your homework, written your senators, then you need to prepare for bed. Brush your teeth, put on your PJs, take yo
Re: (Score:2)
No, in the US it takes around 20 years from planning to hearings to construction to testing to online before nuclear fission power plants can be in use.
We only have 8.5 years left before we have to be at 80% carbon neutral, so you miss the window by more than a decade, plus the concrete involved in building a nuclear fission plant creates more global warming, and the heat change due to climate change makes cooling water less efficient, so you basically can't roll out nuclear fission and have it help.
I think
Re: (Score:2)
No, in the US it takes around 20 years from planning to hearings to construction to testing to online before nuclear fission power plants can be in use.
There are small reactors well along the development curve that will not take 20 years to get in place and operating, unless the know-nothing fear monger nuke haters keep throwing every legal challenge they can think of into the works to stop them.
We only have 8.5 years left before we have to be at 80% carbon neutral,
This is a man-made deadline, and is hardly cast in stone. It's like the 20 year schedule you mention -- a creation of man.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, they would have to be rushed through the approval process, which means I am correct that, in the US today, unless we become a totalitarian servant state of a foreign power, nuclear fission can't be built with negative carbon impact in less than 20 years.
Which means it is unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, they would have to be rushed through the approval process,
You can try to put all kinds of stupid words in my mouth, but I'm not going to let you succeed. I didn't say anything of the sort. You know it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, they would have to be rushed through the approval process
Rushed through the approval process? Get Boeing to run the program.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, in the US it takes around 20 years from planning to hearings to construction to testing to online before nuclear fission power plants can be in use.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
OH WAIT, YOU DON'T THINK.
Re: (Score:1)
Most of that time is for hearings and protests and near-endless lawsuits without merit. Cut those out, and we could build the plants in 5-6 years, like most other nuclear-powered nations do...
And where does this 8.5 years for 80% carbon neutral come from? Yet another prediction certain to be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not becoming a totalitarian state just because it would be easier for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. If it can't be done carbon neutrally by 8.5 years from now, it's not a solution, it's a wish or aspiration.
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lets see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not the one true solution? Excess power can be used to desalinate water (we can always flush any excess back into the ocean), and every operating nuclear plant pays into not just a decommissioning fund, but a fund to handle waste storage forever. The waste that does not have a place to go - Hanford et. al. - is from Government projects and military applications, not commercial/civilian use.
In the State of California - the most energy-using State in the nation - we could get 100% of our electricity nee
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power fails all on its own by being incredibly slow to build, expensive to run, economical only at massive scales and demanding of manpower just to
Re: (Score:2)
We could switch to nuclear but people wouldn't put up with the massive price hikes.
Nuclear is at least twice the price of wind: https://uk.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
And wind is falling while nuclear is rising. People just aren't going to pay that kind of money.
Sure... you can literally go extinct too! (Score:1)
Is that exciting enougg for you?
Ignorance truly is bliss. Especially the willful kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear !
blindseer is obviously on to something here , we NEED more nuclear power!
Completely out of left field with you blind. Never in a million years would I have imagined you'd turn an xbox Vs. Playstation thread into a nuclear power discussion.... hahah just kidding i knew you would =)
Can I get a cut though? if I pitch you some softballs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The "Final Solution" will involve thermonuclear exchange. Cull the human population, stop industrialization, and cool the planet in a nuclear winter. Oh, but the wealthy will have their bunkers, for sure!
Turning it off will save even more (Score:3)
Sure, enough drops in the bucket and it will overflow, but how much time is being spent on solving a problem that has an even easier (and better) solution. Perhaps they could have found a way to lower energy consumption while the console is playing games or performing other tasks where there isn't an easier (and better) solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Just turning the console off would save even more power. But of course you'll just say, "But then it takes so long to start up!" and I would respond "Not if you don't write such a bloated pile of shit operating system for something that just needs to play games!"
Bootup time on my PS4 is short, be it from "rest mode" or from full on off. That being said, rest mode allows the system to do updates in the background, as well as downloading entire games (and I'm sure some people are dling movies, TV shows, etc) while it's in rest mode. Case in point, this weekend I installed a new HD on my PS4 and, literally overnight, half of my games were installed while in rest mode. Had I needed it to be full on the whole time, it would've undoubtedly drained significantly more p
Re: (Score:2)
Had I needed it to be full on the whole time, it would've undoubtedly drained significantly more power for those downloads and installs.
How much longer did it take for those installs and downloads while running in "rest mode" compared to full power mode? The downloads may have been limited by your network bandwidth, but the install is local.
People want to play games on consoles, not update. (Score:2)
How much longer did it take for those installs and downloads while running in "rest mode" compared to full power mode?
Probably no longer, and what it meant was when he went to play games, there were games to play instead of hour long downloads to complete.
The instal itself is usually fairly quick, on my PS4 I get game updates in the background that do not install until I start the game - it's usually just a minute or two before the game is active again. If I had to wait for downloads I'd have to go do some
Re: (Score:2)
Probably no longer,
Then exactly what is "resting" in resting mode? It's not the CPU, since the CPU tasks are taking "no longer".
what it meant was when he went to play games, there were games to play instead of hour long downloads to complete.
Yes, yes, I know that. But that would be exactly the same had his system been in full power mode for a shorter period of time previously while downloading and installing games. Either way, they're there when he went to play them.
The point is, taking longer to do something in "resting mode" compared to shorter times to do it in full power can work out the same overall. Five watts for an hour is the
Re: (Score:2)
Probably no longer,
Then exactly what is "resting" in resting mode? It's not the CPU, since the CPU tasks are taking "no longer".
So your laptop, when it's closed, utilizes the same amount of processing power to maintain its network connection (presuming that feature is enabled) as it does when it's open and running? CPU tasks can be governed down to allow it to still maintain the download processing/basic file maintenance needed, then, prior to startup of the game itself, take the 2 minutes to "install". Whereas, when the console is running, it requires the CPU to interact with the UI as well as many other aspects that can be put t
Re: (Score:2)
So your laptop, when it's closed, utilizes the same amount of processing power to maintain its network connection (presuming that feature is enabled) as it does when it's open and running?
Who is talking about laptops? We're talking about game consoles, and the fact that some of the power savings they get from being in "resting mode" while trying to do work isn't a real savings because it would be faster to do the same job at full speed. Like I pointed out, 5W for an hour is the same as 15W for 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
The PS4 is actually two computers in one box. There is the games console side which is x86 and high power. Then there is a hidden ARM computer that handles stuff like background downloads. It's got its own OS, RAM etc. and can access the machine's HDD.
Unfortunately more and more devices are like that. Cable boxes often download programme guide updates while "off". OLED TVs do calibration cycles to compensate of uneven wear on the pixels while "off", so if you always unplug it actually degrades the picture o
Re: (Score:1)
No, what they should turn off are the damn servers. How much power are they sucking down?
This is so lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you don't write such a bloated pile of shit operating system for something that just needs to play games!
"Just play games" is a great euphemism for "I don't know what all this does but I feel obligated to comment about features I personally think many people should not have".
No they aren't (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really wanted to "join the fight against climate change" they would not make new consoles.
Instead both are using climate change for marketing.
Microsoft's "800k carbon neutral X-Boxes" will mean they paid some dude $10 for a certificate that said it was OK they expelled whatever amount of CO2.
Sony's saying the power saving features will save enough power for 1k homes just means there are default power saving features that are normally on and most people probably won't adjust them.
It is really good marketing I guess, though at some people won't most people see through the veil? Or maybe the ones that can, do not care, and the ones that care just can't see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they pay? Carbon neutral has no "defined meaning" so it's just marketing hype.
Yes it has, you liar. (Score:1)
It means, you emit as much CO2 as you take in. Precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
If they really wanted to "join the fight against climate change" they would not make new consoles.
Instead both are using climate change for marketing.
Microsoft's "800k carbon neutral X-Boxes" will mean they paid some dude $10 for a certificate that said it was OK they expelled whatever amount of CO2.
Sony's saying the power saving features will save enough power for 1k homes just means there are default power saving features that are normally on and most people probably won't adjust them.
It is really good marketing I guess, though at some people won't most people see through the veil? Or maybe the ones that can, do not care, and the ones that care just can't see.
You're right! Just like Apple should stop making new products. And Dell. And Tesla. And Ford. Heck, if we're really trying to fight climate change, we should all stop having kids and just focus on planting trees...</facetious>
Re: (Score:2)
My LG TV loves to keep turning on the wifi when it updates. The default setting is on, including in standby mode just in case I want to turn it on from my phone for some reason. If consumer pressure to reduce energy consumption clamps down on that kind of BS it is a good thing.
It's not ideal but it's better than nothing. Unfortunately convincing people not to buy a PS5 is probably going to be quite difficult.
Maybe because those go together? (Score:1)
You know you can just use a green energy source and be as inefficient as you want without taking longer, right?
We're not gonna run out of sun anytime soon.
In fact, currently, we're wasting nearly all of it to space. And even here on earth, the dead deserts are vast and lack solar panels.
1000 homes? (Score:2)
Do we think the energy setting will default to on? Probably not.
"If just 42 million people buy our new PS5 and turn on the "energy saving while sleeping" feature we could save enough energy to power 87 homes for 15 minutes."
p.s. buy our shit.
Of course they are not going to reduce the power while the system is running , don't be foolish, what and let the xbox get a performance advantage?? please.
One bought enough carbon credits to cover the first 3 days of production, the other hid a "setting" away to save
The funniest line ... (Score:4, Informative)
And what does the study say about how many billions of dollars in energy costs are wasted when they are not in standby. I.e., playing games?
If the game is consuming electricity, it cannot be carbon neutral. The "carbon neutral" can come only if someone pays extra so that all of his electricity comes from a truly carbon-neutral source. The game has nothing to do with it.
Pays extra? Not anymore! (Score:1)
I am quite poor, for living in a first world country.
So I had to get the cheapest power supplier I could find.
It was a green/renewable one.
Actually, most were.
No, our subsidizing stopped some time ago.
Sorry. Fossil fuels and nuclear reactors are dead.
Wasn't it in the news recently, that even in the US, this was starting to happen?
Ummmm.... (Score:2)
"Sony said if 1 million users make use of the PS5's energy-saving feature, it'll save the equivalent of the average electricity use of 1,000 US homes."
That doesn't seem like much a 'savings' to me for getting a million people involved.
Just get 1 million people to turn off their porch lights and you'd probably save enough to run 100,000 homes.
The main power drain is your TV (Score:2)
While it is true that game consoles aren't the best at power consumption, the main power usage is your large HDTV monitor (TV) you plug it into.
Try using a 32 inch LCD or OLED monitor instead of a 50 inch monitor, and cut your power draw dramatically.
Of course, if you are a wise consumer, you probably already own solar panels and wind turbines and sell your excess power to the utilities, so you're already running it carbon neutral in terms of energy.
I find hooking up the kids to a flywheel to power the TV a
Re: (Score:2)
The conversion of food to muscle power is about 25%, and your flywheel-generator is likely about 80%. efficient. Net efficiency would be better is you just plugged into the wall.
On the other hand, the kids will be more physically fit. The upcoming eco-masters will appreciate that in their green slaves.
Re: (Score:1)
Jefferson Airplne (Score:2)
How it differs from the rocks.
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
Inefficiency is not the problem. (Score:1)
We have far more energy than we need, a thousand times over. And even of we don't use it, the sun won't stop shining it onto us.
The problem is how we make that energy!
Because letting that sunlight first grow trees and animals, then having them die, compose and compress, dig them up, and ... light them on fire(!!) ... might be the stupidest, most convoluted way of getting energy, ever conceived.
It's literally like the Vogons from Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
And a fusion (or fission) reactor, that isn't
Don't give a flying fuck (Score:2)
I get the impression some folks spend a ton of time on their consoles not playing games. More power to them, shut down their power. Me? Fuck that, when I'm on my PS4 (and presumably PS5) I'm playing a game, take your minuscule energy savings elsewhere. Like to people who get home at 5:30 and want to cook dinner. Or want to run the dishwasher after dinner. (source: California's brain dead "we're really gonna fuck you over
This is laughable (Score:1)
If They Were Sincere (Score:2)
If Sony & MS were truly interested in producing game consoles that were more ecologically friendly, they'd design them to be easily user-repairable and provide parts & support to individuals and small shops and make them relatively-long-term upgrade-able,
This is simply meaningless corporate PR-pandering aimed at low-info types that will have little positive effect.
Strat
The bigger picture (Score:2)
If your content is in the cloud (i.e. CDN or huge server farms) these server farms have been found to be extremely unfriendly to the environment. Where do you think all that electricity comes from, where does all that AC come from, where do all those battery backups come from, switches, routers, bandwidth, and all the maintenance. So every time you play a game you have to get the content from these server farms that are using lots of electricity. If these companies really want to help with climate change th
Correction (Score:2)
Two console manufacturers who have nothing new in the making found a new marketing ploy to stay in the news.
But I guess that was too long for a headline.
make us of? (Score:2)
"Sony said if 1 million users make use of the PS5's energy-saving feature, it'll save the equivalent of the average electricity use of 1,000 US homes."
what do you mean, make-use-of?
it's not on by default?
wow, that is one serious commitment to the environment!
Capitalism + Climate Change (Score:1)
We'll start seeing a lot of companies start using "environmentally friendly" as a marketing tactic. At the end of the day, it will just be more buzzwords on the packaging that consumers pay a premium for.
"Environmentally Friendly, Vegan, Non-GMO, CBD toilet paper.... only $69.99 a roll!"
The Real Problem With Change (Score:1)
Then end planned obsolescence. (Score:1)