Dedicated gamers are in a difficult position if they also consider themselves to be environmentally aware and considerate. It takes 100 to 500 trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by a computer left on all day, so one can imagine the strain it must be for a gamer who owns three consoles and a computer. This is made all the more difficult when current generation consoles have functions that encourage users to keep their consoles on - i.e. Wii Connect 24, Folding @ Home. As can be expected, studies haven't been particularly supportive of continual video game usage.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), alongside Ecos Consulting, released their findings after conducting the first-ever comprehensive study on the energy use of video games late last year. With 40 percent of households containing at least one console, the group estimated that these produce roughly 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year. This is close to the annual electricity use of the city of San Diego.
The study found that the Nintendo Wii, which the group called the "juice sipper" of the three major consoles, requires the least energy to operate, using one-seventh that of the PlayStation 3 (PS3) and one-ninth that of the Xbox 360's. They were quick to point out the difference in functionality across these various consoles, and how the difference in graphical capabilities affects energy consumption and production. Since launching, the PS3 and the 360 have been optimizing their systems to become more energy efficient, ranging from different parts for the consoles themselves or internal functionality, like adding a sleep or hibernation mode after the console isn't being used after a while.
The NRDC's greatest finding and suggestion to manufacturers was, since consoles normally use just as much power in idle mode as in regular use, "building in an automatic power-down feature that would put a gaming console into a low-power mode following a defined period of inactivity is the single change that would bring the greatest savings in annual electricity consumption." The simplest suggestion offered for users was to simply power down consoles after playing a game - something increasingly difficult in the current generation.
Both the 360 and PS3 offer power management systems, but these have to be activated by navigating through menus. These are not available by default, requiring users to turn this on. The Xbox 360 was found to be the greatest user of energy of the three consoles.
Though it might be microscopic by comparison, the study made no note of how the consoles handle the controllers. The 360 has a "Plug and Play" rechargeable controller available, while all PS3 controllers are rechargeable out of the box. The Wii, on the other hand, does not come with a plug-in option, draining batteries left and right-especially during transport. Third-party developers have jumped on this opportunity and have produced rechargeable solutions for the Wii, such as Nyko's "Charge Station." So although the Wii doesn't use as much electricity as its competitors, its controllers do require frequent battery-changing if one doesn't consider the ultimately cheaper rechargeable model.
It's getting increasingly difficult to heed the NRDC's advice to shut off consoles after gameplay, since every console this generation offers 24-hour online services that arguably augment or ameliorate a gameplay experience. Gaming and environmentalism seem to be naturally at odds with one another, especially when energy use is factored in with the latter. Many gamers, myself included, leave their consoles on out of habit and ease. Without sounding like Al Gore here, the studies show that shutting consoles off can make a significant difference - and all it requires is inactivity. With increasing awareness about energy consumption, maybe in time consoles' energy usage will be closer to that of Storrs than that of San Diego.
Be the first to comment on this article!