Going by the official PR, Stadia only works on Google Pixel devices as far as phones are concerned.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The ecological impact of Stadia
- Thread starter Phabh
- Start date
Going by the official PR, Stadia only works on Google Pixel devices as far as phones are concerned.
Yeah, this crossed my mind, too.
As a worldwide civilisation we all basically need to go HARD on nuclear power or start finding some really clever solutions to many of our problems.
As a worldwide civilisation we all basically need to go HARD on nuclear power or start finding some really clever solutions to many of our problems.
Watch again the press conference of Google. Stadia will only work on the release day with Pixia devices.
How many people has a Pixia device?
In this thread we are not discussing the money cost for the user.
We are discussing the ecological and environmental consequences.
So a model in which people buy new phones every two years, it doesn't matter if these are sold at 100 or 600 dollars, also has a negative impact for the environment.
Indeed, every phone manufactured is using coltan.
And this has created in countries like Congo a system of human exploitation close to slavery, controlled by local mafias.
You mean how they are taking away tons of farmland in the states so they can build these ugly ass datacenters?
Didn't Google just put a Data Center in ocean? Or was that MS...?
It was MS. Under the sea, Microsoft tests a datacenter that's quick to deploy ...https://news.microsoft.com/.../under-the-sea-microsoft-tests-a-datacenter-thats-quick-to-d...
It was MS. Under the sea, Microsoft tests a datacenter that's quick to deploy ...https://news.microsoft.com/.../under-the-sea-microsoft-tests-a-datacenter-thats-quick-to-d...
Beef farm vs data farm. Which has the biggest negative environmental impact?
My guess would still be the beef farm.
do you not understand how Stadia works or something? No, it's not going to be limited to Pixel devices. We literally already know this. It will be available in just about every android phone, android tv, and anything with a chromium-based browser. It will only work on Pixel devices at launch day because that's how you do these kinds of things. You need to have a smaller number of people first to know how to adjust your service properly. Doesn't mean it's a pixel-only feature. It isn't.
Sounds like much better use, environmentally and practically, than using it for regular farming, considering how much of the US farming is just subsidized by the government and then the results just thrown away.
It won't stay Pixel-exclusive for long, unless they want their service to flop completely. People won't buy a high-end phone just to play on Stadia. And they certainly are not going to make older phones intentionally incompatible with the service, as that makes no sense with their intention of making this "a platform for everyone". Their intent is for people to use the phones they already have.
It's a device-agnostic system in concept; it works on PCs, tablets, smart TVs... You really don't need to buy anything to use it.
Bitcoin is a far bigger and useless environmental threat than any datacenter farms out there, tbh.
Oh and actual animal farming. lol.
Oh and actual animal farming. lol.
About nuclear power? No, to reach scale and output quickly enough for the world's needs, the only fast ENOUGH solution is nuclear power. Of course renewables etc are the best option but they're too far behind for the immediately urgent current situation. Nuclear is now so well regulated and controlled that it's relatively clean, super safe and the most powerful option we have.
This might totally change in the next 10-20 years and I hope it does but I doubt it will.
I don't think Stadia will be less green than selling 100,000,000 plastic PS4s in cardboard boxes and providing 24-hour network services for them.
But Stadia entering the fray will be worse overall because we'll have these cloud services AND consoles for the foreseeable future.
But Stadia entering the fray will be worse overall because we'll have these cloud services AND consoles for the foreseeable future.
Using the UK as a base downloading a 50GB game has a worse carbon footprint than driving to the store and picking up that 50GB game on a disk because of the data center infrastructure the op is worried about and yes that includes the manufacturing, plastic waste, and shipping. So imagine how bad streaming a game all day is.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/downloading-video-games-worse-planet-ordering-disks
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/downloading-video-games-worse-planet-ordering-disks
Last edited:
Data centers are the least of my concerns when it comes to ecological impact. By centralizing storage, compute, GPU, and network resources you have the ability to be much more efficient, especially with the improvements to data center virtualization over the last 20 years. I've seen hospital data centers transition from rows and rows of physical servers to a few racks of virtualization hosts running the same workload, and as cloud computing has taken off that server footprint shrinks even further (granted, that workload is shifted to AWS/Azure/Google/another cloud provider, but it's going to be much more efficient at their scale)
That's not even getting into the savings when you eliminate the need for manufacturing and distributing a physical console and its accessories
That's not even getting into the savings when you eliminate the need for manufacturing and distributing a physical console and its accessories
With Google and MS investing in datacenters 100% powered by renewable energy and using the warmth of the datacenters for neighbouring companies and cities.. do we know what the footprint of these datacenters actually is?
Also, I for one am glad we are getting rid of all the useless plastics to package stuff.
Also, I for one am glad we are getting rid of all the useless plastics to package stuff.
If you live far from the datacenter, that's a lot of energy to transport the video stream to your home (several routers around the world in the worst case, I live in Europe for example).
Local gaming demand less energy.
Local gaming demand less energy.
Data-centers is only half of problem. For delivering content you need energy too.
Not to mention that 5G networks consume more energy than 4G. And you need 5G for "bright future of game streaming".
I think you are overestimating greatly overestimating how much energy it takes to stream and underestimating the power consumption required to play games locally on most platforms. I mean I'm not an expert but high bandwidth =/= high power consumption.
Power consumption on modern home consoles is very high regardless of what you are doing. I would imagine running celeste uses just as much power as running a AAA game. I'm pretty sure developers just use all the power they have available on non portable hardware. Playing celste on a pro or old ps4 probably uses like 10x the power that it would take to play it on the switch despite both versions looking identical.
http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_gameconsole.htm
Who knows streaming might actually help with this problem as Google is going to put more pressure on developers to reduce energy use because for google higher energy consumption = higher costs. It's never going to be as efficient as mobile/switch, but streaming might not be the worst option for these games.
The plastic used in 100 million Playstation 4 boxes is nothing compared with the environmental cost of hundred of millions of phones manufactured each year.
https://www.dw.com/en/smartphones-not-so-smart-for-the-planet/a-37824142
We can discuss things like energy efficiency, but the argument of manufacturing hardware is not a valid argument.
Because things are much worse in the phone and tablets landscape.
Okay. Not sure why you randomly brought this up like I said otherwise tho.
You seem to forget about the inefficient cost of building a plant then the permanent cost of storing the waste, then the ecological impact of the waste and/or the plant if a meltdown or breach was to occur.
Example: Hinckley point C in the UK
Sure. But those 5G networks will be built anyway. I'd also like to know the difference in ecological footprint between:
- A full blown console without physical content
&
- A streaming service which doesn't need that console but uses the same screen
I apologize if I misreaded the intention of your post :)
(Note that the following part is not directed to you, but it's a reflection about the hardware argument)
But the argument of traditional consoles as a waste of plastic, has been used in this thread until the extenuation.
Google is really good at marketing, and I suppose that their message of no hardware has resonated among the audience.
But the reality is that Google is a company that has been pushing the hardware market and a Planned obsolescence model, in the same way as Apple.
And this is other on top of the things and services of Google for giving a reason to buy the newest shiny hardware in the market which is using Android.
There is not a difference between the model of buying a new plastic box in the form of a console every 4 to 7 years with the model of Google/Apple.
Even with computers, very few of them will last for more than 7 years..
At the end, a hardware will not be able to run the newest operating system.
And the Chrome browser will stop receiving updates for the old and deprecated operating system.
I have old Macbooks in my house that I can't longer use to enter in something as simple as Gmail, because Chrome its not compatible and it stopped receiving updates.
In the same moment in which Stadia requires multiple hardware devices to run this thing, it's the same problem than with consoles. But even worse, because in the case of Google and Apple, they have been much more aggressive with this Planned obsolescence model.
Stadia is not a future in which people will buy less hardware and plastic boxes, even if consoles disappear. It's a future in which more plastic boxes will be sold each year.
The aviation industry only accounts for 2% of all human induced CO2 emissions though. Granted as aviation transport (and internet usage) grows that number will also increase if no regulations or innovations occur in the industry; however, I don't think it's as big a deal as other industries carbon footprint.
This is a good thread that has nothing to do with Stadia.
P.S. I'm so sick about how you're not going to use Stadia like it makes you sound more noble. It's video games ffs.
P.S. I'm so sick about how you're not going to use Stadia like it makes you sound more noble. It's video games ffs.
Huh, i thought it would be better because no physical games, no plastic, etc but you have a point 🤔
They're putting in a new Google Datacenter near my office. Supposed to require 750 megawatts of power. That's alot.
The model that we have right now is the definition of waste. 90 million PS4, around 50 million Xbox Ones, 32 million Switch sold and the average gamer only uses their console around 6 hours every week. Think about the amount of plastic just sitting there for the rest 162 hours that a week has. In a server environment you could cover the same amount of people with a lot less hardware that will be used almost a 100% of the time. I'm not even going into the monetary and environmental cost of manufacturing and distributing the games and consoles. Digital gaming and cloud gaming are the way to go if you really care about the environment.
"Video gamers spend an average of 5.96 hours each week playing games. 20.1 percent play for an hour or less each week. 36.2 percent play between one and four hours each week."
https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2018/
well, it's pretty "simple": Enforce climate goals and requirements by law. If companies are invested enough, they'll pay that price.
I thinks it's obvious that adding a bunch of server farms like this (they are already in place) will indeed impact the eco system. However, it could be offset by people not having dedicated systems running the games at home.
Not a 1:1 trade I'm sure, but not as bad as it seems?
Obviously more data is needed.
Not a 1:1 trade I'm sure, but not as bad as it seems?
Obviously more data is needed.
I would imagine it might actually better for the environment than the traditional model. Take 100 people wanting to play games
Traditional model:
- 100 plastic boxes containing CPUs, GPUs, RAM etc.
- Each unit is connected to a power supply and consuming energy 24/7 (assuming people use standby)
- Each game is made and wrapped in various layers of plastics, then transported to retail, then transported to consumer
Cloud model:
- < 100 equivalent resources can be dynamically allocated to service the 100 users at times they need
- Content is delivered without transportation and plastic
Now clearly this is quite crude, but if we assume that modern data centres are built to certain environmental standards with X% of electricity generated from renewables, then the power consumption side may be even less of an issue. I would genuinely like to see a complete environmental impact study on this scenario.
Traditional model:
- 100 plastic boxes containing CPUs, GPUs, RAM etc.
- Each unit is connected to a power supply and consuming energy 24/7 (assuming people use standby)
- Each game is made and wrapped in various layers of plastics, then transported to retail, then transported to consumer
Cloud model:
- < 100 equivalent resources can be dynamically allocated to service the 100 users at times they need
- Content is delivered without transportation and plastic
Now clearly this is quite crude, but if we assume that modern data centres are built to certain environmental standards with X% of electricity generated from renewables, then the power consumption side may be even less of an issue. I would genuinely like to see a complete environmental impact study on this scenario.
From what I've read, the only real issue is the one of storing the waste. But the point is will be far faster and easier to come up with safe, appropriate storage solutions for the waste than it would to get renewables to where they need to be. It just needs far more careful regulation and standards (which was a problem and caused issues for decades).
Comparatively, the building of a plant is way better than spending another 20 years getting battery and renewables technology to where it needs to be, and we don't even know if we'll succeed at that. (That timespan is totally liable to change though, which would render my argument moot.)
OP
OP
Cloud model:
- Push for global 5G infrastructure
- Energy needed for streaming 4K/8K data constantly during play sessions
What about those costs? I know 5G is going to happen nonetheless unfortunately but Google is part of that push.
Just out of curiosity...Do you drive a zero emissions vehicle or bike/walk? Are you a vegan? Do you prioritize on buying recycled products?
Not only that, but since the average gamer only plays for 6 hours a week and not at the same time, you could handle the same amount of people with a lot less hardware. It is indefensible to talk about Millions of unused consoles, a lot of them consuming power in standby while not used, as better to the environment than the server model.
Yeah good points. There are no doubt hundreds of factors on both sides, which I guess why people research this kind of stuff for a living, I'd be genuinely interested to know.
Yeah exactly, that was what I was getting at. But as I say, I'm no expert but to me it is common sense that say 40 CPUs might be able to service those 100 people if allocated efficiently. Add on top of that the impact of shipping physical games and it only further supports that idea.
I agree, but moreover human activity in general is inherently anti-ecological since 18th century. Maybe even before but that's my estimate off the top of my head.
Key findings from NRDC's study
After testing these devices and analyzing the data, we made the following observations regarding the consoles' features and energy use:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pierre...e-consoles-how-much-energy-do-they-waste-when
After testing these devices and analyzing the data, we made the following observations regarding the consoles' features and energy use:
- The new consoles consume more energy each year playing video or in standby mode than playing games.
- The Xbox One and PS4 consume two to three times more annual energy than the latest models of their predecessors, the Xbox 360 and PS3.
- While the new versions are more powerful, the two- to three-fold increase in energy use is due to higher power demand in standby and on modes and, in the case of the Xbox One, more time switched on due to its TV viewing mode. In this mode, the console is used in addition to the current set-top box to access cable or satellite TV, adding 72 watts to TV viewing. Do you really want a 72-watt remote control, when a traditional battery-powered remote draws less than 1 watt?
- The Xbox One draws less power than the PS4 to play games and video. However, the Xbox One consumes a lot more energy when not in use (connected standby mode).
- Nearly half of the Xbox One's annual energy is consumed in connected standby, when the console continuously draws more than 15 watts while waiting for the user to say "Xbox on," even in the middle of the night or when no one is home. If left unchanged and all Xbox 360 models are replaced by Xbox One consoles, this one feature will be responsible for $400 million in annual electricity bills and the equivalent annual output of a large, 750-megawatt power plant – and its associated pollution.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pierre...e-consoles-how-much-energy-do-they-waste-when
Does that include the manufacture and distribution of the disk?
Mining corporations are removing whole mountains in open extraction pits to satiate global demand for minerals and energy, especially to sustain our development in information technology. Energy consumption is an important concern, and I will applaud every company trying to go renewable, but accountability really just begins here. We "recover" resources from landscapes and people living there (by dispossession mostly), subsequently raise mountains of electronic trash in our own backyards (but mostly in poor countries), all the while whole ecosystems and fresh water supplies are polluted or destroyed by neoliberal policies and technical experts solving problems they brought there in the first place.
Google spends not even a thought on this of course. Their presentation is a transcendental wonderland of bodiless information-circulation, and the materiality of it all only concerns us when we deal with teraflops and frames per second, not people and their worlds exploited by meaningless distinctions between huge and tiny data centers and their impact on abstractions.
Google spends not even a thought on this of course. Their presentation is a transcendental wonderland of bodiless information-circulation, and the materiality of it all only concerns us when we deal with teraflops and frames per second, not people and their worlds exploited by meaningless distinctions between huge and tiny data centers and their impact on abstractions.
Last edited:
Probably a net positive impact insofar as it drives down power usage in homes. Ever console or high end GPU currently consuming electricity which is replaced by Stadia usage would likely mean a substitution of kWh from traditional energy sources (your home, probably), to Google Datacenters (renewable, much more likely).
There's an argument to be made about the total *increase* in gaming-related power consumption if this thing is a massive success which not only displaces current solutions but rather goes beyond and grows the market. But again, given how aggressive Google's push for renewables has been lately, probably not a big concern.
There's an argument to be made about the total *increase* in gaming-related power consumption if this thing is a massive success which not only displaces current solutions but rather goes beyond and grows the market. But again, given how aggressive Google's push for renewables has been lately, probably not a big concern.
Communism, too. There are no technoligical advancements and nobody who has the power to hold the power stations accountable. In the 1980s the air pollution was much worse in Eastern Germany compared to Western Germany.
Only indigenous peoples manage to live in harmony with nature.
All of those things are coming no matter what and everybody will take advantage of these technologies. The fact you're relating this exclusively to Stadia like it's Google's fault makes me question your intentions. Like you don't actually care about these issues... unless it has to do with your weird nonsense dystopian fantasy about Google. But even ignoring all of that, literally playing anything else doesn't make you anymore noble that using Stadia.
There's genuine concerns, but they've all been question more times than you can count and at this point, you're just making up arguments.