Wal-Mart Wants to Turn the Game Biz Green

Perhaps the video game industry is taking environmental concerns raised by Greenpeace last year to heart?

According to Walmart’s official blog, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, and a few publishers such as EA and Activision recently attended a green gaming summit where they discussed various ways to be more environmentally friendly.  Here are a few suggestions reported by Joe Muha, Walmart’s gadgets and gaming guy:

  • Switching to cardboard packaging would be like taking almost 4,000 cars off the road in terms of equivalent green house gas emissions. 
  • Working with console manufacturers on coding and power usage design can reduce the power consumption when we use our devices for media playback. 
  • Focusing on the next generation of consoles would allow the machines to be built from the ground up to use less power while providing an even better experience. 
  • Developing software and hardware that allows us to save the game so we do not have to leave it on would allow us to turn it off during a meal break or overnight without loosing our place. Additionally, come clever programming would allow the console to go into a lower power, standby mode when not in use.

Muha elaborates on the game save issue in his blog’s comments section:

Not every game allows us to save whenever we would like. We even discussed the idea of an "autosave" if the game is left alone after a set period of time and the console would go to a low power mode.

Via: Kotaku

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    oto kirlama says:

    I’m all for freedom of ttnet vitamin speech and allowing rent a car game makers to put whatever they want in games, but there’s one thing about this app that has me scratching my head.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but from araç kiralama the previous article araba kiralama on this I gathered that players can use Google maps in-game to find the other (real-life?) dealers in their area.  If this is the case, has travesti anyone considered what’s stopping someone from using this app to actually move drugs between hands for reals?

    But majority araba kiralama of their outrage araç kiralama stems from what it could DO TO children, not the content itself.  Talk to one of these people and you’ll find they don’t think any books kiralık araba should be banned from children.  Mention American Psycho and they talk about kiralık araç the redeeming value of using imagination to construct a story.  Reading, no matter what the content, is largely viewed as a consequenceless activity for people of any age.  The reason why I mention American Psycho is because of the content itself.  Gaming never has and likely never will have any scenes where someone has sex with a severed head.  Not gonna happen.  Yet despite this, they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect their children from two boys kissing in Bully but whatever they read is harmless… yeah.

    The entire arguement is kiralık oto based upon a social normality inflicted by luddites who can’t figure out the controls for Halo so it’s frightening and terrifying and obviously the cause of youth violence on the rise even though, in reality, it’s in decline (which is actually a HUGE suprise given minibüs kiralama the economies status).  In  a perfect world, we would have parents that actually parent.  The idea of sales restrictions on media on oto kiralama any form to accomidate parental unwillingness to get involved with their child’s life is the real problem to me.  Here I am, 32 years old, and being held up at a self-scan rent a car needing to show ID before I can buy a $10 M rated game all because Soccer Momthra can’t be bothered to look at the crap Billy Genericallystupidson does in his free time.  It’s too hard for her, so I have to suffer?

  2. 0

    Yeah and of course their response to the temp drop is that just because there’s a drop, it doesn’t mean there isn’t Global Warming or actually, the drop is BECAUSE of global warming! >_<

  3. 0
    Tieowbeijas ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Look up ITER, they are to begin building a tokamak reactor complex this year, and according to their plan (which may or may not go through) commercial fusion power plants would be available around the 2050’s. Not cold fusion, but if it works it will be nothing short of awesome. On cold fusion itself, it seems like India is researching it.

  4. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Global warming had the same support, with the same ‘studies’ (seriously, look at those studies, replace Global Warming with global cooling and you’ve got the same shit people go on about today), and the same ‘facts’.  It had the same following, and even the same call for an end to pollution.

    Exxon Mobil has a lot to gain.  They’re looking for alternative fuel sources more than any other fuel company, and if they can force limited use of gasoline on the people and spread their own new fuel(s), they can make a bundle while every other gas company plays catch up.

  5. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Believing that the non-existence of Global Warming is a conspiracy theory is fundamentally false.  If Global warming was and could be proven scientifically, then multiple people would have to be able to come to the same output with a specific given input.  Seeing how the input is usually the same, and not a single study into global warming has come up with nearly the exact same numbers that any other study shows that Global Warming isn’t provable at this time.

    We can prove gravity, pressure, the balance of forces, nuclear reactions, chemistry, and hundreds upon hundreds of other scientific principles because time and time again when we gather empirical evidence in studies we get the same exact answers for the same problems.  When there is something that goes against the norm, it is documented, discussed, and the old ideas are improved upon.  This is scientific method.  Because the same can not be said about Global Warming (multiple groups examining the same thing won’t come up with the same answers), Global Warming (including the causes as well as the projected outcomes of it) can’t be said to be proven.  The only thing these studies have in common would be they point to the existence of global warming, and that may in fact show something.  However, it could also mean that some/many/most started off with the belief that global warming was a fact, which fundamentally makes any such study non-scientific. 

    Once the same results can be found by different groups using the same set of input data for at least 100 times, then I might start to buy into the science of Global Warming.  Right now they’re still struggling with 2 or 3.

    I’ll finish up now:

    "The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church’s prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture."

    -wikipedia article on Galileo

    Galileo was right.  The Earth does move around the Sun.  When he brought this fact forward, practically no scientist supported him.  According to the scientific consensus at the time, he was wrong.  Why did they disagree?  Because politics were involved…heavily.  Draw from this what you will, but I think, given my arguments on this, that what I’m trying to prove with it is fairly obvious.

    I don’t wear a tin hat.  I like radiation.  Afterall, I am a proponent of Nuclear Energy.  Christ, that was a horrible attempt at humor.

  6. 0
    Anonymous says:

    NASA is hurting for money.  Space flight isn’t cheap, you know.  And NASA’s knowledge of global warming is spurred on by political, and not scientific, reasons.  Don’t look to a program that focuses on space to see what’s happening on the planet.

    Global cooling had just as much of a following as global warming, but then the years stopped getting colder and started getting warmer, which quickly killed any idea of a global cooling.

    Global warming has never been proven.  It’s something that can’t be proven.  You can look at past data and say "yes, there has been a slight warming trend over the past few years" but you can’t use that data to say "we’re going to burn in the future."  Any attempt to predict average temperatures from past data have been horribly false.

    The reason why congress received a report is simply because they asked for it.  So, the national intelligence guys said "do we really have to?"  Congress says yes, and so the Nat Int guys go off and look for any possible side effects global warming could have.  This doesn’t prove the existence of Global Warming.  It was all a "what if" kind of a study which was started by Politicians who want to look savvy and intellectual about global warming.  Just saying that something is possibly doesn’t make it true.

    Also, why are you looking to a government authority for scientific facts?  Do you believe the governemnt funded "scientific" studies that find harmful effects of video games on kids?  You’re not JT, so I would assume not.  Do you look to the government to tell you what the internet is (obligatory "series of tubes")?  The government, including any political organization, doesn’t care about what science says.  They only care about what their science says, which is to say, pseudo-science that started off with a preconceived conclusion that seeks to find any semblence of facts there are to make their intended point.  Al Gore is not honest with you, nor is Obama, McCain, Bush (sr and jr), or any other politician.  They all are looking out, not for their constituents, but for themselves.  When someone buys into Global Warming, the sanctity of marriage, family values, the decline of children, etc, someone else profits, and it’s usually the people who are "looking out for your cause."

  7. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Fusion is great to talk about, and they think they’re on the right track with it all, but what you’re talking about is simply not feasible for (pulls a number out of his ass) at least 100 years and probably more.  First, they have to actually make it, then they have to make is safe and small enough to put into a car.  They’d also have to make it so that it wouldn’t require an excessive amount of energy to start up and maintain, or in laymens terms "cold fusion."  All of this is still in the realm of science fiction, but then again so was harnessing the power of atoms 80 years ago.  It’s wishful thinking, but feel blessed if it ever happens in your lifetime.

  8. 0
    Anonymous says:

    First, a report about a well documented MIT professor


    a book where the same facts used to boost environmentalist claims are shown to also point to a different conclusion



    This stuff we’re talking about isn’t specifically a Republican talking point.  The fact is that what studies there have been on any cause or effect of Global warming are never accurate, and don’t hold up to thurough scientific peer reviews.  People are shouting about "fact" when there isn’t yet a fact to argue about.  Hell, we can’t even predict what the weather will be like in a week let alone map out the course of climate change for the next 10-20 years. 

    The fact is that taking a stance against global warming claims is a skeptic’s talking point.  I love the outdoors, love nature, yet I look into all sides of an argument and I usually get a conclusion that’s against 99% of "green thinkers."  I can tell you why nuclear is the best environmental choice for power.  I can tell you why hybrid cars hurt the planet more than a gas-guzzling SUV.  I can explain why carbon credits are pointless.  Most of this info is a bit harder to find, as it paints a picture that the world isn’t on the brink of destruction.  The reason why that would matter is because broadcast stations, news networks, and political groups can’t get attention if they say everything is fine with the world.

    Thus, I get to my final point.  There is always a counter argument.  To say that something is absolute is foolish, as that would require testing and observations of an infinite number of possibilities.  This means that there is always a possibility to be proven wrong, and thus there is always going to be someone out there who is arguing for the other side.  In the case of Global Warming, there is just as much facts against it as there are for it.  The reason why you never hear that side of it is simply because it doesn’t get people’s attention as much as "Global warming will be the end of this planet in the next few decades."


  9. 0
    Anonymous says:

    "Global warming is propagated because there are enough corrupt people who realize that people like yourself are dumb enough to buy into it and they realize that they’ll make a huge profit and by the time they’ve been proven wrong, they’ll already have their fortune and there’ll be nothing you can do about it."

    I think your tinfoil hat is interfering with your brainwave patterns.

  10. 0
    Anonymous says:

    That would be a valid argument if this was one, two, or even a dozen studies. But it’s not. It’s hundreds, from many different scientists and from many different organizations, most of which (e.g. NASA) aren’t exactly hurting for money.

    Global Cooling is not a valid comparision, it never had anywhere near the support that  global warming did. Furthermore, why are people with nothing to gain , like exxon-mobil, not calling bullshit on this supposed shoddy research? Because it’s been proven time and time again. Why did congress recently receive a report on the possible Nat. security consequences of global warming from the dept. of national intelligence? Did they not do their research just like the thousands of others scientists? Were they just looking for money?

    And if were going to do internet dick waving here, then yeah, I’d think that my degree in biological oceanography makes me more qualified to speak about this than some one with two totally unrelated doctorates. (Seriously, why do you think those are relevant?) But then I guess I’m just in on the vast conspiracy along with all those other scientists.

  11. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Not at all.  I’m simply stating that I don’t own an SUV, and that I own other cars instead, one of which gets better mileage than the ‘environmentally friendly’ prius.

  12. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m saying that studies denouncing global warming tend to result in loss of funding, which is a quick way to end a scientific career.  I’m saying that I saw this with Global Cooling.  I’m saying that if you produce quick and shoddy studies (ie every study concerning global warming I’ve seen thus far) you can make hundreds of thousands of dollars without doing any research, without citing any fact, and without proving any hypothesis.

    But I’m sure you know more about statistics and studies than me, what with your two Doctorates in Criminology and Sociology.

  13. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    The ability to turn the system off without losing your place… Makes me think of the PSP…



  14. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Wait, so what you’re saying is, every single scientist and organization that has provided evidence that supports global warming, they’re either corrupt or ignorant. My god, the conspiracy is huge. Congrats, you’re a conspiracy theorist.

  15. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m skeptical because I remember global cooling, and I’ve heard all these arguments before and seen the lack of real scientific evidence.

    Also, unlike yourself, I have the intelligence to realize ‘consensus’ doesn’t mean it is right.

    Global warming is propagated because there are enough corrupt people who realize that people like yourself are dumb enough to buy into it and they realize that they’ll make a huge profit and by the time they’ve been proven wrong, they’ll already have their fortune and there’ll be nothing you can do about it.  There is no proof that Global Warming is any more real than Global Cooling.

    You’ve chosen, like many of your generation, to buy into a lie made possible by greed in the scientific and corporate communities, but you’re too dumb to catch on to it.  Congrats, you’re a sheep.

  16. 0
    Kendra Kirai says:

    I think the answer to it all is fusion energy.  We need more research into it, but because it has the word ‘nuclear’ in it (Nuclear Fusion) people think ‘zomg, radiation, we’ll all be mutants with cancer!’..which is wrong.  A well-designed fusion reactor would have, as it’s output, helium and oxygen, assuming water was used as the fuel.


    If we could develop a very small, low-power fusion reactor, we could put them in our cars for power. It’d run on a tank of water or compressed air, and might even make ‘running out of gas’ a thing of the past, as it could theoretically allow the use of ambient air to go into a low power mode…either to go slowly, or to charge up the batteries. The helium could even be put back into the fusion process.


    Fusion is very efficient, remarkably safe, if done via particle acceleration instead of just ‘heat it ’till it fuses on it’s own’, and can be run on just about any element lighter than Iron and still produce more energy than it requires, without producing higher-energy radiation (Such as X-rays).


    But first, we have to put more research into it, which we can’t do until the more sheep-like environmentalists stop going ‘zomg, nuclear, nuclear bad!’ (Not saying all environmentalists are like this, but rather a lot of them are. Rather a lot of people in GENERAL are like that.)


    There’s actually a new-ish type of reactor that’s even safer than current fission reactors….it’s called a ‘pebble bed reactor’.  The nuclear fuel is encased in it’s own storage/control medium, allowing heat to reach the water/cooling medium (Nuclear reactors are really little more than gigantic steam engines, underneath all the safety equipment), but never enough material being present to allow for any sort of meltdown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor It even makes disposal dead simple because the nuclear material is pre-packaged.

  17. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    The point is my arguments are based on fact, not a ‘consensus’ and the idealistic ‘let’s save the world’ mindset that produces jackasses like Greenpeace and PETA, both groups which need to shoot themselves.
    I’m not ‘ultraconservative’, i’m actually fairly moderate, but I’m also not weak minded enough to buy into global warming bullshit.  Maybe its because unlike the majority of global warming supporties, I actually have a background in statistics and realize how easy it is to manipulate and bribe scientists and manipulate the minds of the idiotic masses.

  18. 0

    Do you have any links to backup any of the typical Republican talking points you’ve been spewing in this thread?  My own research and experience backs up almost nothing you’ve been claiming and your principal argument always seems to be "This is how it is and if you disagree you’re wrong."

  19. 0
    sheppy says:

    You know, I buy games frequently and have a collection of over 1000.  For the past several years, I haven’t encountered a single game where a save point either isn’t instant, or within an hour of gameplay.  Those I have heard of without save games are things like old school, under half an hour to beat games.  So yes, I say leaving a system on overnight is pure ignorance.  Unless you’re doing something like autogrinding or setting up a 24hour race in GT or Forza and then that becomes the designers fault for being a dumb bastard.

  20. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:


    But its fine for them to use a lot of power and create a lot of pollution because they need it to help protect the environment, while you don’t need it to do anything but contribute to society.

  21. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Right, I state that ethanol would be a bad choice for this country as it doesn’t have the sugarcane resources to make enough of it.  This is why I instead argued for the use of biodiesel.


    And nuclear power can’t run our cars, unless you want to go full electric cars.  Then you’d have to look into getting enough batteries for all of them.  You’d probably would want lithium ion batteries if you want to do this for the safer to the environment reasons, as the nickel used to make the batteries in basically most every current hybrid or full electric cars absolutely destroy the land for miles around any nickel mining site.  In fact, it destroys the planet so much in those areas that in the 60s NASA used areas near nickel mines to practice lunar equipment as the terrain is very similar.  So much for the eco-friendly hybrid cars.

  22. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Heh…I figured you watch P&T.  Good show, that.


    the other anon dude who’s speaking for nukes, and against global warming and the general green movement.

  23. 0
    Anonymous says:

     The scientific proof for global cooling was the exact same as for global warming.  Massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by man made objects like power plants and automobiles.  If you replaced any of those scientific articles back then with the word warming instead of cooling, you’d get basically the same arguments.

  24. 0
    Anonymous says:

     No, it’s not a conspiracy.  It’s simply a political point that allows them to look good if they support it.  Cause really, how can you be so evil as to not want to save the world?  Seriously, by saying "because these political people and political organizations say it’s true, means it must be" you’re basically giving away your right to actually think for yourself.  Just because the church said the world is flat hundreds of years ago didn’t make it true.

    Also, yes, the scientists were bribed.  When the bastion of all things global warming related, Al Gore, was VP, he was so gracious enough to go around academia, seek out and find any scientist that didn’t believe in global warming, and cut their funding.  Hell, even though he’s no longer VP, his influence is still going on.  In academia, you basically have to believe in global warming, otherwise you’ll probably get your funding cut.  Then there are the climate change studies, which are some of the most unscientific studies I’ve ever looked upon.  They always start off with the premise of climate change, and more specifically global warming, to be an absolute fact, and then go from there.  Nothing is an absolute fact, or should be treated as such by anyone claiming to be a scientist.

    Global warming is a political ploy, meant to make you scared of the world today and follow the people who are in charge to help "fix" it.

    Oh, and don’t credit NASA with anything to do about global warming.  NASA is a shadow of its former self and is basically a shell devoted to nothing but bureaucratic bickering and partisan politics.  It isn’t your Apollo themed NASA anymore.  Sadly enough, I hate what it’s become yet my ultimate goal is to probably work there.  Why must I be such an optimist?

  25. 0
    Anonymous says:

    All I had to do is read "Greenpeace" and I immediatly laughed at this one.

    Anyone that supports this idiocracy of an organization is pretty much X’ed out in my book.  Your nothing but a bunch of "Sheeple" that eat propoganda by the spoonfulls.  Go eat your Tofu and turn on your seinfeld.

    While I do agree that corporations and manufacterers should reaseach and develop ways not to be wasteful.  Just so long as they dont sacrifice quality.

    Greanpeace is a farce.  Do your own research on these nut jobs.  These are the people that go into rainforests and cry. LITERALLY. Cry to the trees telling them that they are "Sorry"  for humans cutting them down.  Then 30 minutes later, hop in thier Full size chevy tahoe getting 10 MPG.

  26. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    They actually had the same amount of scientific support, except global warming has the added weight of being proven wrong by the four leading temperature tracking groups in 07, when the worldwide temperature dropped, on average, 2 degrees farenheit.

  27. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Ahhh yes, once again we hear useless bullshit from someone who is "in the know".

    I stopped caring what "experts" who work for retail companies had to say, and I care even less for what Greenpeace says since they seemed contradictory to themselves at times.

    But seriously, "working with console manufacturers to make their products use less energy"? That doesn’t do anything but save a LITTLE cash on your electric bill. Power company is still gonna keep pumping out the SAME level of energy they allready do.

  28. 0
    ecco6t9 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I agree this going green crap fad really needs to end.

    All these people talk about being green but yet most shudder at the thought of taking a bus to work or to the store.

    Although one thing we can possibly do is get rid of the game instruction books.

  29. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I don’t own an SUV, but I do have a non-hybrid car with better gas mileage than hybrid cars, and its got a more powerful engine.

    I also own three sports cars and a boat.

  30. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Considering that a large amount of species removed from the list are removed because they were mistakenly added, I’m not willing to trust that piece of garbage any more than I’d trust you. 

    As for getting on the list, if a group bitches long enough, they’ll put anything on the list.  Hell, I’m willing to bet if I cared to spend the time and money doing it, I could get cockroaches put on that list.

    As for your second bit, did you see the average temperature for 2007?  Where it was 2 degrees farenheit lower than the previous year?   Sounds like global warming to me.

  31. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Let me take you back a bit in history, when we are all in fear of GLOBAL COOLING!

    Pretty much the same thing, widespread panic, NASA, the entire democrat party, the UN, and all these other groups were saying by 2010 we’d be on a rock that was uninhabitable. 

    I guess that having a scientific consensus made that right too, eh?

    Consensus means that there’s no real proof, but we agree that it could, just maybe, be happening.

  32. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Polar Bear population is at least five times higher than the numbers often quoted both by your group and PETA, which are taken from 1975.

    Wow, I guess someone better tell that Dept. of Int., because they just put it on the endangered species list. As in a couple of months ago.

    Global Warming is bullshit

    from the notoriusly unscientific and partisian agency NASA : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/


  33. 0
    Anonymous says:

     It’s really amazing how you find it easier to believe in a giantic worldwide conspiracy rather than global warming. then again, i guess it justifies your SUV.

  34. 0
    Anonymous says:

     So, you’re saying that (deep breath) all of the nations that signed the kyoto protocol, NASA, most of the democratic party, a large percentage of republicans, exxon mobil itself, barack Obama, countless enviormentalists, mike Huckabee, john mccain, the UN, and the scientists behind the vast majority of climate change studies, are all in massive conspiracy, or are merely ”jackasses”. I mean , that’s gotta be one hell of a conspiracy, as the scientific consensus is that global warming is real, so they’d have to bribe millions of scientists.


  35. 0
    TJLK says:

    I agree that Nuclear power is the most logical direction.  And I am against using food for fuel but I’d much rather take the cheapest and less economically harmful route which is to acquire such from other countries.

    I’m also greatly interested in what discoveries will come after September 10th.  LHC seems to be something that will have a great impact on many aspects of our future.

  36. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Wind power barely works at 20 percent capacity most of the time (and that’s the high).  Wind power is insufficient to power our country, and it’s a waste of money.

    As for your statement that we can make our own ethanol, you should probably realize that this is one of those things that helps to raise the price of food across the board.  As for using sugar cane, that would be great, but we don’t grow a lot of that here, and getting it from another country means we get to pay a .54cent per gallon tariff thanks to Barack Obama and his friends.

    The answer for powering our country is Nuclear.  I’ll get back to you on powering our cars, but I can tell you that anyone that uses food to power a vehicle is a jackass.

  37. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I think its funny that you make some of these claims.

    1.  Yes, greenpeace is anti-capitalism.  If you can’t accept that, you’re wrong; this isn’t an opinion, this is an actuality. 

    2. Wal Mart employees are very well paid, despite what you would like to think.

    3.  You’re right.  I should ignore the 4 largest weather tracking groups in the world, countless scientists, and common sense, and listen to a jackass like Al Gore. 

  38. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I especially enjoy their retarded stance against genetically engineered fruits and vegetables, even going so far as to convince an African nation to reject millions of dollars worth of free food that could have helped their poor and starving populace.

  39. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Hey, how did you enjoy Penn and Teller’s experiment when they got your idiotic followers to sign a petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O)?  Seems like the second they said ‘corporations and companies use it’ your followers were all too quick to try and ban water.

    Face it, Greenpeace isn’t about helping anyone, its just about pushing your idiotic and unscientific agenda.

    You’re all for doing things to help the environment right until its not convenient for you anymore.  You’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites, just like PETA, and you try and force your ideals of right and wrong on the rest of us.
    Here are some facts for you:

    Nuclear Power is fucking amazing.  Far better than Coal, Solar, and Wind power.

    There is no deforestation occuring because of logging.  They rotate their cutting, allowing trees to grow.

    Global Warming is bullshit, and while we’re at it, the Polar Bear population is at least five times higher than the numbers often quoted both by your group and PETA, which are taken from 1975.

  40. 0
    Anonymous says:

    "but I’m also not weak minded enough to buy into global warming bullshit"

    You are weak-minded enough to believe in the opposite of scientific consensus, and to convince yourself you’re being strong-minded and skeptical for doing so. You’ve chosen believe what you <i>wish</i> to believe and you don’t even realize it.

  41. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Hmm….this reminds me of someone who happens to  use around 10 times the power of the average american household but still is regarded as one of the leaders of the green movement.  Hmm…who could that be again…?  I know he "buys" carbon credit to offset his extra energy consumption, yet I also know that he owns the company he buys the carbon credits from…

    I know he made a fairly shitty documentary and got a nobel peace prize for some reason.  Hmm…who is he again?


    Oh yes, Al Gore.

  42. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Wind and Solar always have, and always will work.  The problem is that people are dreaming if they think we can become fully dependant on those power sources alone.  The environmental problem of wind generators has already been mentioned, so I’ll just talk about solar.  To make solar cells, there is a decent amount of waste that is anything but good for the environment.  The problem with most people who like to "think green" is they very rarely look at how something is made and only look at how it performs.  They see something that sits around and makes energy by sitting in the sun, and they think "hey, this is good for the environment." 

    The fact is that the building of the solar cells isn’t good for the environment, and it also is a major resource hog at times.  Solar Cells also have a very low efficiency rating, as the low end ones which cost around a $million per kW and give around a 20% energy conversion into electricity, and the better ones which get up to 35% cost a hell of a lot more.  So basically, we don’t invest into solar because we’d go bankrupt even faster.  You get better performance and more energy for your money if you go coal/petrol/nuclear.

    Also, we can make our own ethanol, seeing how we have hawaii and florida that can grow sugarcane, which is what Brazil uses to make their ethanol.  Corn ethanol is actually very inefficient to make, and you actually have to use around 1L of petrol to make something around 1.07L of ethanol from corn, whereas with sugarcane you get something crazy like 7L.  Would it be enough for us?  Definately not, but the point of ethanol or bio-disel is to become independant of other countries for your fuel.  Honestly, for this country bio-disel would probably be a better alternative seeing how it’s basically oil that’s been treated to not solidify at lower temperatures, and we have more than enough home grown oil.  Plus we can use peanut oil and the exhaust will smell like peanut butter (this is actually not a joke…people who make their own bio-disel have mentioned this side effect).

  43. 0
    sqlrob says:

    You don’t get my point.

    Plastic cases: I keep the cases for storage

    Cardboard cases: I throw away the cases, buy plastic cases.

    There’s a net LOSS of what’s in the cardboard instead of if they just shipped it in plastic in the first place. Yes it’s renewable, but it’s better if you don’t use it in the first place if it doesn’t save you anything.

  44. 0
    Capgun says:

    Well, Those don’t seem like terrible ideas(despite the fact I had this whole "green" fad), but for god’s sake, don’t go back to using cardboard unless they plan on reinforcing it with steel or something. Of all the game’s I’ve bought over the years(computer and console alike), very few(read: two) of the cardboard ones have survived over the years, while my plastic ones are all intact.

  45. 0
    Anonymous says:

    The way Moore usually tells it, it’s because the group was hijacked by socialist groups that wanted to use the green movement to further their causes of anti-globilization and anti-corporation.  But then again, he could have gotten his own story wrong.

  46. 0
    Anonymous says:

    but OMG holy shit guys that could like…totally irradiate the sun and ruin it for millions of years.

    Joking aside, burning it to non-existence on the surface of the sun would definately get rid of it.  However, with the case of space travel, it’s unreasonable to say "transportation issues aside."  Once it becomes super cheap to launch a Delta V heavy into space, and launch failure rates as well as spacecraft infant mortality rates become near non-existent, then we can start thinking about tossing our junk into the sun.


    *note – in the Aerospace sector, infant mortality refers to a spacecraft or satellite that dies before a full power up once in space.  This usually happens within the first hour, and is never a fun thing to have happen.

  47. 0
    Anonymous says:

     really? Man, as a GP manager i must be missing those meeting were they encourage us to blow up the ”evil capitalists” and only going to to the carbon footprint meetings. And moore left becuase they decided to oppose chlorine, which was stupid and many of us agree with him.

  48. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Are you trying to ironic or not? Becuase if you aren’t, that’s kinda sad. Yes, Greenpeace is a little crazy(a little extreme, but far from the ”Zomg commies!" that you portray them as), but there are many more reasonable enviormental groups out there. And no Wal Mart employees are not well paid, they actually get 20% less than industry average (not to mention shitty working conditions). And Wal-Mart employees have tried several times to join those ”pesky unions”, only to denied by the corporation. And i guess going green is idiotic if you don’t give a shit about the enviornment, or buy whatever BS science exxon-mobil putting out this week.

  49. 0
    Anonymous says:

    My problem with paper game packaging isn’t with the ecological aspects as it is the fact that paper doesn’t hold up nearly as well as plastic to normal wear and tear, kids, pets, acts of God, etc.

    If they want to go that route, they might want to recommend that customers purchase a CD/DVD binder to hold their games, and recycle the cases.


    At the same time, they should strongly recommend retail outlets bump up their security; most people who steal video games are stronger than cheap cardboard, and a few of them carry knives, nail clippers, and other cutting utensils. If retail stores want to market cheap cardboard cases, they’ll have to get security cases to hold them, if they don’t already. I’m looking right at you, Walmart.

  50. 0
    Chaplain99 says:

    I’m going to go completely off-topic on this one, k?

    We’re talking about the same France who’s population, around 3 years ago, was rioting because of poor living conditions, right?  Saying it’s good enough for France isn’t necessarily the point.  The point is, is it good enough to meet our needs?

  51. 0

    Hey! You don’t like the networks of NBC’s (a GE company, "buy our compact floresent light bulbs, just ignore the mercury in them or one of our many other products and be greeeeeeeeen") "green week"?!

  52. 0
    Anonymous says:

    The reactor at Chernobyl also suffered from severe design flaws, flaws that are not replicated in new plants. Pointing to Chernobyl would be what jack-jack would hobble along with if he hated nukes.

  53. 0

    Yeah but now they find out that the wind turbines are killing bats. >_> Oh and besides that the enviromental whackjobs are also bitching about the powerlines that are needed. There’s no pleasing them…

  54. 0
    Kojiro ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Typical corporate green washing.  The jet fuel they burned flying to this summit will counter any action they take. 

    While I like the save-feature (PSP already does this. You can shut it off at anytime and it keeps the game state in memory until you power it on again, but takes more battery power to maintain) it will likely result in even more power usage as it is abused as a quick start up, much like standby mode on your PC.

    And cardboard boxes will never fly.  They didn’t fly for CDs, they didn’t fly for DVDs, and they won’t fly for games.

  55. 0
    TJLK says:

    I think that Nuclear power is safe, if you maintain the facilities properly.  We all know what happens when you don’t. (Chernobyl)

    Since when did Wind and Solar power stop working?  From what I’ve seen these technologies still work for creating energy. 

    How about lifting tariffs from Brazilian ethanol?  Maybe we shouldn’t be subsidizing corn for ethanol either, especially when it would be cheaper to just buy it from Brazil.  Either way I’m all for the removal of roadblocks for the progression of technology.

  56. 0
    Anonymous says:

     The whole point is probably just to look like they give a crap for PR reasons.  I agree that it probably won’t help Wal-Mart at all seeing how they will always have unions and groups affiliated with unions that will always say evil about the company.  

  57. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I just want to say something to all the people who are against nuclear power.

    Get with the times. Wind power doesn’t work. Solar power doesn’t work.

    Nuclear power works great and is perfectly safe. What isn’t perfectly safe is coal which requires miners to go down into dangerous coal mines where they risk cave-ins and black-lung.

    France has pretty much gone completely nuclear. If its good enough for them it should definitely be good enough for us.

  58. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I just want to say something to all the people who are against nuclear power.

    Get with the times. Wind power doesn’t work. Solar power doesn’t work.

    Nuclear power works great and is perfectly safe. What isn’t perfectly safe is coal which requires miners to go down into dangerous coal mines where they risk cave-ins and black-lung.

    France has pretty much gone completely nuclear. If its good enough for them it should definitely be good enough for us.

  59. 0
    TJLK says:

    How about we just get more involved with digital distribution and cut out Wal-mart all together.  Not only would that be "green" but it would also be a nice punch to the gut for the evil corporate empire.

    I’ve been playing games that load in-browser and they are awesome.

  60. 0
    Anonymous says:

     The usage of paper actually causes more trees to be planted.  Think of it in the simplistic terms of supply and demand.  If there is demand for paper, then the makers of paper would go out of their way to make sure that there is a steady constant source of resources to supply that demand.  Add that to the fact that all paper made is grown from trees which were planted for the sole purpose of making paper, and you get to the fact that every time you buy or use paper, you’re basically putting in an order for more new trees to be planted.

    But I don’t quite see the benefit of swapping to paper packaging.  I mean…only 4 thousand cars?  That’s basically nothing, and the added cost of going green in this sense would not economically justify the very small environmental payout.

  61. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Not only would that be needlessly expensive, but would be a red tape nightmare.  Imagine if the rocket exploded?  Then you’d have a bunch of blown up spent fuel rods all over the place.  Since they’d explode, it’d be much more difficult to handle the contamination.  Granted, the exposure is about what you’d get during an xray, but still…the simple possibility of it happening would cause environmentalist nuts to fight the idea with everything they’ve got.

    Then there’s the possible moral application of if we have the right to use space as a dump site.

    Then there’s the fact that the radiation in the spend fuel rods would be enough to destroy most any nearby satellite’s electronics.

    Basically, it’s a good idea you have, but it’s one that has been thought up a while ago, and the facts show that, aside from any ecological disasters dumping anything in space might bring,  it’s just way too expensive.

  62. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Congratulation Wal-mart, you lost my respect.
    Sam Walton was a cool cat, and quite the business man.  Wal-mart employees are better paid than most people doing the same job, and they get to save the money a pesky union would steal from them.

    But this is bullshit.  Going green is idiotic in the first place, and this won’t make Greenpeace like you anymore.

    Do you know why?  Because Greenpeace is no longer about the environment, its about being anti-capitalism and anti-corporation.

    Just ask Patrick Moore, the man who co-founded the idiotic group.  Sure, Greenpeace denies it now because he’s criticizing their constant lying, but believe me, he knows more about the group he founded than the group itself wants to let on.

  63. 0

    Ooooh, a whole 4,000 cars! That number is so insignificant that it’s almost like this stupid ideas teachers made us come up with back in middle school in how to reduce pollution.

  64. 0
    Are'el says:

    I would not like for them to change the game packaging to cardboard.  I LIKE the plastic cases.  They keep the disc safe, have a place for the manual so you don’t lose it, and are universally easy to store.  Cardboard would probably mean going back to those damn white sleeves to put your discs in.

    Although, it would be hilarious if they tried to package them in cardboard, and ended up just putting the plastic cases in a cardboard box.

  65. 0
    Father Time says:

    If we were to switch to nuclear power we’d have hundreds of power plants and I doubt that it would be practical to ship all that waste out into space.

    Fortunately though we do have (or more accurately will have) Yucca Mountain.

  66. 0
    Father Time says:

    "Switching to cardboard packaging would be like taking almost 4,000 cars off the road in terms of equivalent green house gas emissions. "

    Yeah but it will seriously leave them open for water damage and the like and it would be a grand step backwards. I wonder how green it would be if we switched to PS1 style CD cases.

  67. 0
    Anonymous says:



    I’ve seriously considered upon multiple occasions creating an enormous machine that does nothing but take in gasoline and puff out greenhouse gasses, just to annoy these people.

  68. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Wait. So we eliminate using plastic in out packaging by chopping down more trees to make cardboard packaging? I don’t think someone thought that through very well.

    Saving games more often would certainly allow you to turn off the console more often. And yes there are still plenty of games that limit your ability to save. So don’t argue that that is a moot point.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
    Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  69. 0
    Pominator says:

    regarding the disposal of nuclear waste…

    when you are outdoors, look up please you will notice that there is quite a lot of space up there… is it too unreal for us to dump our waste in space? I mean, maybe if we do, any other intelligent life in the galaxy may be drawn to it, and allow them to discover us! The radiation would be like a beacon to aliens right?

    Your soul is a tasty refreshing treat to ones such as I

  70. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Penn and Teller are alright in my book.  I enjoy their open mockery of stupid people and frauds.  The only things I disagree with them on are the whole ‘existence of God’ thing, and the show they did on Capital Punishment, but both of their arguments are well thought out and well presented, unlike Global Warming which has no thought and is presented in a way that if you don’t agree, you’re a terrible, terrible person who hates the world.

  71. 0
    Anonymous says:

    On average, Wal-mart employees get paid over $10 for lower level jobs.  90% of all managment level jobs in Wal-Mart are people who started out in floor jobs in the store, or in other words, Wal-Mart promotes from within.  Any movement towards making unions haven’t been squashed by the corporation, as that would be illegal, but rather was squashed by the other employees.  And don’t try and say that Wal-Mart covered up killing any movement towards unionizing, seeing how it’s been inspected by the federal govenment multiple times due to such rumors spread by some of the more powerful unions. 

    Wal-Mart very rarely is subject to employee abuse.  When it’s found that it has been, which are relatively few occasions, it has compensated its employees.  An addition of a Wal-Mart into a community usually increases the economic stability of that area, especially if the area is a lower than average economic area (say somewhere in downtown LA).  It makes jobs for people that need jobs, and very very rarely (if ever) does it pay its incoming workers as low as minimum wage.

    Honestly, all talk against Wal-Mart is just poorly informed "facts," spread around, started, and heavily influenced by large unions.  Wal-Mart employes 1.5 million people in the United States.  Were it to unionize, each one of those employees will have to pay monthly dues to the union, ranging anywhere from $20-$60 per month.  This leaves the "wal-mart union" making hundreds of millions of dollers a year, which would be money that could be spent in conjunction with other unions to strenghten their own wallets.  The increase in pay that would have to be given to each employee means that many will have to be laid off, and all the extra spending will be passed on to the consumer.

    Seriously, people accuse Wal-Mart of using its business to get rich at the expense of the employees, when all along it’s the unions using their business to get rich at the expense of the union members.

    Upon actual inspection, any hatred levied against Wal-Mart is mostly undeserving.  Sure, it sometimes treats its employees like shit, but what buisness doesn’t?  And honestly, if the working conditions really were all that bad, the workers would have unionized by now.  I mean…it has been around since 1962.

  72. 0
    Anonymous says:

    The problem with this way of thought though is the asumption that we can limit out power usage.  We’re a growing, advancing, society, and to continue to grow, advance, and prosper, we need electricity.  Holding back the usage of electricity and shutting power plants offline is a step in the completely wrong direction.

    The simple fact is that we will continue to need electricity, and the need will most likely grow for it.  Now, with the knowledge that we will continue to have electricity, do you want that power source to come from something like coal, which kills many people every year due to mining, is horrible for the environment, and is found to cause far more radiation to nearby homes and wildlife than a nuclear power plant?  Or would you rather instead switch those low power density, polluting, inefficient, and unsafe power plants with clean, safe, efficient, and high power density nuclear fission?  Hopefully you now get the point of nuclear.


    Oh, and we’ve already spent the money to build Yucca Mountain, which is expected to be able to hold all of our nuclear by products for the next…well….very very very long time (relatively speaking).

  73. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I don’t get Nuclear. I mean it requires a load of engery to get, then a load of money to store the by-product. Seams daft to me.

    If we reduce the engery we consume then we can just switch a powerplant off.

  74. 0
    JustChris says:

    Wind power is actually the most promising form of renewable energy sources we have developed. All practical sources of hydro power (rivers, waterfalls etc) have been fully exploited. Solar panels are made with toxic materials and use up a lot of fossil fuels in their construction. But wind turbines have been made to be more efficient over the last 20 years. They are effective in greater wind speed ranges. New turbines move slower and are smaller so they’re less of a threat to flying animals. Unsightly? Maybe 1000 windmills on a field isn’t an awesome sight, but it’s better than looking at a giant, dirty coal plant pumping out smoke.

  75. 0
    Chaplain99 says:

    lol.   I was TOTALLY gonna mention the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game, but…

    Anyway, kudos for writing yet ANOTHER Wikipedia-esque report on how Chernobyl is Russia’s biggest fuck-up to date.  Thanks.

    Listen, if we’re all so worried about nuclear fallout, why not build offshore nuclear plants?  I mean, really, you have a meltdown, there’s a fucking OCEAN to cool the reaction.  And damage to local sea life? Trust me, we’re not gonna have any Jaws sharks swimmin’ around anytime soon, people.

  76. 0
    MrKlorox says:

    That pretty much sums it up. Also you get a cookie for mentioning both Chernobyl and the word "anomaly" in the same sentence without explicitly referring to the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. franchise.

  77. 0
    Anonymous says:

     Your arguments are horribly flawed here.

    Nuclear waste is very easy to dispose of, actually.  It’s solid metal pellets, and in transportation they’re guarded by a protective casing that can withstand a collision from a train going 70mph, and can withstand temperatures up to 1200 degrees (F).  If there was any breach to the container and the spent fuel rods were thrown about, you could pick it up and restore it.  It doesn’t have enough radiation to cause any immediate damage, and is only a problem if exposed to it for very long periods of time.  All that’s left is the storage, which can easily be done in the middle of a desert.

    Nuclear energy was fit for wide scale use back in the 60s.  There was that near partial meltdown at 3-mile island, but that was hardly anything.  The reaction died out automatically, and the amounts of radiation that was sent out to nearby houses was miniscule and short lived.  Basically, you get higher doses of radiation if you live near a coal power plant.  Now it’s 40 years later.  Proposed nuclear power plants now are far more safe, more efficient, and give a higher power output.

    Finally, your use of Chernobyl, while an obvious usage by anyone anti-nuclear energy, is horribly flawed to begin with when talking about nuclear energy usage in the US or any NATO country.  Chernobyl was a Russian reactor, which means that its make up is entirely different than any NATO style power plant.  Any power plant used in a NATO country is designed to automatically kill any reaction if a meltdown is close to happening.  Russian nuclear power plants do not have this safety feature in them, or at least they didn’t at the time.  Also, Chernobyl is a bit of an anomaly seeing how the meltdown happened during a non-routine test, against the recommendation of many of the engineers, bypassing all of the safety protocols, and pushing the reactor to its utmost limits.  No matter what, this can not happen in a nuclear reactor in the US.  It just isn’t possible.

    The simple fact is that the number of people killed by any of the few nuclear disasters is nothing compared to the number of people who die mining for coal, or drilling for oil.  What "disasters" there were have been overplayed by green party groups who, quite frankly, don’t know, or bother to look for, the actual truth in most matters.  Nuclear energy has always been the best choice for electrical power, for both efficiency and environmental reasons.  Nuclear waste byproducts do practically nothing to the environment compared to both coal and oil.

    but enough about that…

  78. 0
    mykie says:

    Are you from 1989 or something?  Your arguments against nuclear are terribly aged.

    The short answer to whether or not the "risk" of using nuclear energy is worth it or not: Yes, it’s worth it.  Technology even 10 years ago made nuclear safe, and technology has gotten better, safer, and more efficient since then. Chernobyl is the strawman argument that every anti-nuclear activist uses, but the Chernobyl disaster happened because of inadequate safety equipment, a complete disregard for safety protocols, and all-around inept engineering.  In short, nuclear technology did not cause the Chernobyl disaster, it was human error.

    The disposal of spent nuclear fuel has been wrapped in red tape since the 80’s, and there is ample space for it in Yucca Mountain.  Currently, nuclear waste is stored on site at most operating nuclear facillities unable to be moved to the spacious Yucca Mountain facility because of all the cries of "Not in my backyard" (Even though the facility is already very remote).  

    If Yucca Mountain were to open today and begin accepting shipments of all spent nuclear fuel in the US (This stuff is heavily accounted for, by the way), it would only fill to 3% of its current total capacity.  It’s not like we’re talking about storing gigantic tanks of sludge here, these are pencil-thin solid rods that are about 10 feet long.

  79. 0

    Chernobyl was over 20 years ago and has been in wide scale use for decades, the US has nuclear plants, France gets most of their energy from nuclear plants and also has been using it for decades. The only real issue is what to do with the waste.

  80. 0
    Nekowolf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yeah, but that IS the problem with nuclear, is if something DOES happen, would it really be worth that level of risk? And there’s still the problem of nuclear waste which is considerably harder to handle and dispose of. By which, we bury it somewhere remote. But as time goes on, those remote areas would be filled up, then what?

    While yes, nuclear would produce MASSIVE amounts of energy, it’s still not quite ready for a widescale use.

    Also, don’t forget an important factor at Chernobyl was also how basic their computer systems were. Nowhere near what they should’ve been for a nuclear plant.

  81. 0
    Anonymous says:

    When DVDs first came out three or so styles of DVD cases were released. One of which was mostly cardboard. It was also the one that looked the best.

    ast time I checked, the CD and DVD sections
    "Everyone else does it" is not a good reason for us to do it.

  82. 0
    Haggard says:

    Indeed, I like having my collection of old games in plastic cases. I don’t want some cardboard that’ll turn to mush after a couple of years on my shelf!

  83. 0
    Doctor Proctor says:

    "Developing software and hardware that allows us to save the game so we do not have to leave it on would allow us to turn it off during a meal break or overnight without loosing our place. Additionally, come clever programming would allow the console to go into a lower power, standby mode when not in use."

    Seriously???  The last time I left a game half the day because I couldn’t save was in the SNES era. 

    And cardboard packaging?  Are they talking about getting rid of the clamshells for peripherals, or the games themselves?  Cuz last time I checked, the CD and DVD sections of Wal-Mart and Best Buy were a LOT bigger than the game sections, and they use plastic in their packaging too.

    — "Life’s short and hard, like a body building elf." — The Bloodhound Gang

  84. 0
    Corey says:

     Nintendo already does this with the DS. When you close the device it freezes your progress in the game and goes into energy save mode which uses very little power. When you open it back up, the screens and sounds turn back on and leaves you exactly where you were when you closed it. Maybe the consoles can use a similar feature.

  85. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    I don’t typically correct spelling or grammar in pull quotes.  I did change "gamew" to "game" but other than that, I left Muha’s text as he wrote it.


    Andrew Eisen

  86. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Capitalism means that they can both compete, and if wal-mart does better, it stays.  If you want your local businesses to stay there, shop there.
    Walmart is a fairly good store, makes many jobs that pay higher than the average, and help their employees more than you’d like to give them credit for. 

    Of course, I’ve been to wal-marts in 47 states for sundries when I travel, but I’m sure you know better than the rest of us.  Their prices are often the best in town, far better than local pharmacies and whatnot, and if they’re not the best they’re on the same level as every other store.

    Wal-mart is a good store, and most super stores that come into towns destroy the ‘small-town economy’, although people like to attribute this to only wal-mart.

  87. 0
    sheppy says:

    Actually that’s not very rare.  In fact, it often happens after Walmart has been entrenched in a region.  Like in my area, we have three walmarts versus a couple shnucks, couple county markets, and one Meijer.

    County Market is only slightly more expensive than Walmart but their generic foods are much better and their sales are decent.  Schnucks is obviously much higher although like always, their produce is great so you shop there for produce.  Meijer is the only real competitor to Walmart and that’s a 3:1 ratio, and despite this, Meijer is often cheaper on a vast majority of their products.  Walmart is just more expensive here because they think they’re untouchable and they rarely compete.

    Of course this tactic of Walmarts is well known and heavily documented but you don’t want to research because it’s "anti-capitalists rhetoric."  Look, there are good stores, and then there is Walmart.  Trying not to support them isn’t a matter of being anti-capitalism, but rather trying not to support a corporate system that attacks local economies.  Many other super stores can come into towns without destroying them, so why can’t Wal-Mart?

  88. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    That’s very rare.  Is it a rich neighborhood, or has it had regulations imposed on it by local government/ city council?  Because they will pass their legal fees onto you, rather than dock their employee’s pay.

  89. 0
    Seiena_Cyrus ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    No offense but not all Wal-marts are the same…We have pretty high prices at our Wal-mart. They infact charge just as much as K-mart does for the same stuff…so no not all walmarts pass the savings onto people…infact here in my town…It’s been pretty easy to find the same stuff often times cheaper at our local K-mart…So I wouldn’t assume they all do it.

  90. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Wal-Mart maintains such affordable prices because they pass the savings onto you, but still make the same profit margin as Target, Kmart(well, as Kmart used to anyway), Meijer, etc.

    Go hate Wal-Mart somewhere else, we need less of that kind of jackass anti-capitalist rhetoric.

  91. 0
    Anonymous says:

    "My problem with using less electricity is like saying taking less water from a river."

    No. Less demand for electricity means the power plant doesn’t have to be worked quite as hard, which translates directly into a savings on whatever kind of fuel the power plant requires. While a single person using less electricity would not be enough to get the power company to reduce a plant’s output, a whole bunch of people doing the same certainly would be.

  92. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Windmills? Aside from the their low power output, they also kill bats that the elimiation of would have FAR worse consquences on the envrioment…


    Now Nuclear… As long as we aren’t stupid like the Russians were and take the safetys off for real reason, or cut corners in design…

  93. 0
    KayleL says:

    My problem with using less electricity is like saying taking less water from a river. No matter how much or how little amount of water you take, there still going to be just as much water coming down the river. If we want to save the planet with the consumption of electricity, what we need to change is the power source, not the outlet. Shut down the coal power plants, and start using windmills. More studies for better solar panels, etc.

    We have to recognize the actual problem if we are going to make a solution.

    I am also am a believer the CO2 isn’t the global warming tool that media made it.

  94. 0
    Haggard says:

    The thing is, this is a large inconvenience for a very small gain. If we stop games being in plastic DVD cases, it’s the equivalent of taking 4,000 cars off the road? Why not just run an ad campaign promoting the use of bicyles? Why not lower the amount of plastic food comes wrapped in?

    It’s like going to orphanage with a collection plate when there’s a millionaire’s club just across the street.

  95. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Good to hear. There is no reason that every corporation should not be doing all that they can to help our planet back from the brink of destruction.  Kudos to Walmart and the Game Companies for putting life before profits. Maybe other corporate fat cats will learn from such courageous examples.

  96. 0
    Anonymous ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I am curious as to what their eco-friendly alternative is…

    Either way, programmers are trying to make these consoles maxed out on everything they do, though they may be able to make minor improvements on energy cost (god knows the X360 needs to use less energy so it wouldnt need a cooling system to prevent from certain problems….), they wont be able to make massive improvements like what ‘walmart’ is saying.

    This is all a PR scam walmart is trying to pull off to make them look more eco friendly, it is all to pull attention away with things walmart definitely does wrong…

  97. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Oh boy. Wal-Mart hasn’t screwed up artistic expression through music enough, they need to throw their crap into videogames while still [whatever evil hippies are complaining about that Wal-Mart does this week].

  98. 0
    Zerodash. ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Cardboard packaging?  I remember when Sega switched from those plastic Genesis cases to the cheap cardboard ones.  Not cool.  

    In any case, digital distribution is the future, which will render the packaging issue moot in a decade or so…

  99. 0
    ChrowX ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This going green crap is getting a little old… The crap about energy saving consoles won’t make a difference and it will probably put a lot more strain ont he companies that doesn’t need to be there. What I’m getting at is that using less electricity doesn’t equate to the power-plants creating less electricity (and thus more waste). The way alot of these Green advocates propose it makes it sound like the power plants only make as much electricity as needed based on how much is being pulled in from how households and such.

    There’s some merit in getting rid of all of the plastic casings, since that will get rid of a ton of by chemical by-products, but I’ve got to say that the rest is mindless drivel brought on by this terrible Green trend that seems to have swept the nation.

Leave a Reply