This caught my eye: “carbon emissions could rise by 30%” - that’s worrying 
Microsoft is poised to launch its game streaming service, delivering high-end titles direct to phones - and Google already offers an equivalent service.
Cloud gaming promises top-tier graphics and performance without the expensive hardware - with no more massive updates or downloads.
But some studies suggests it could be more damaging to the planet.
One recent study from Lancaster University estimated that if gamers moved to streaming over the next decade, carbon emissions could rise by 30%.
1 Like
That’s certainly worrying, if it came to fruition.
But if you ask me: streaming services will never have the same market share as consoles or even the PC today.
Sure, for some games it works fairly well, anything which has a slower pace, but games such as shooters or fighting games are not really enjoyable when streamed.
3 Likes
To answer the title: it’s IMO better for the planet. All those routers, switches and servers are powered on 24/7 anyway so why not use their bandwidth better by not having expensive and power-draining gaming machine at home, streaming to a much weaker and eco-friendly device instead?
But, save for rather basic games – and/or games where latency doesn’t matter – I can’t see cloud-streamed gaming ever take off due to most of the internet being dog-slow.
4 Likes
