Is Streaming Games While Using Artificial Intelligence Environmentally Possible to Defend?
Google’s New Gaming Console Uses Artificial Intelligence With Negative Latency to Predict Gamer Behaviour
It has been discussed recently that our streaming habits may not be so great for the environment (read: horrible), so the move for the gaming industry to further ease of convenience seems questionable. I am not so sure: “Everybody’s doing it,” is a proper justification — although so far this seems to be my impression of Google’s effort to launch a cloud gaming service.
“The entire information technology (IT) sector — from powering internet servers to charging smartphones — is already estimated to have the same carbon footprint as the aviation industry’s fuel emissions. And it is on course to consume as much as 20% of the world’s electricity by 2030, according to Anders Andrae, who is based at Huawei Technologies.” BBC, 12th October 2018.
If so what makes it consume more or less?
What is Google Stadia?
Stadia is a cloud gaming service operated by Google. It is said to be capable of streaming video games up to 4K resolution at 60 frames per second with support for high-dynamic-range, to players via the company’s numerous data centers across the globe, provided they are using a sufficiently high-speed Internet connection. It is accessible through the Google Chrome web browser on desktop computers, or through smartphones, tablets, smart televisions, digital media players, and Chromecast.
Negative Latency
There is a doubt by consumers that cloud gaming will be a hit. So to ensure consumers of speed Google is taking several steps (1): Google developed its own controller which connects via Wi-Fi directly to the Google data center in which the game is running, to reduce input latency; (2) Google is also exploring further ways to reduce latency, using an idea called “negative latency” which involves prediction of user input through various means so that any apparent network lag between controller and game response is minimised.
“Obviously there is no such thing as ‘negative latency,’ which seems more like marketing jargon than anything. As PC Gamer noted, one game developer on Twitter suspected that the predictive button pressing feature is not some kind of promise that Stadia will come with aim assist or press buttons for players — that would kind of ruin the experience — but instead is just branding talk for branch prediction.” — Gizmodo, 10th of October 2019
Runahead
It is speculated in Venture Beat whether Google might not have to rely on prediction. It could just send your inputs back in time. This is something that the emulator front-end platform Retroarch implemented in a feature called “runahead.”
Here’s an explanation of how it works from the blog Filthy Pants:
“The way it works is whenever the player’s input changes, you roll back one frame and apply the new inputs retroactively and then emulate two frames to catch back up. This makes your inputs go into effect one frame before you actually pressed the button.”
The UN and Gaming
There is apparently a Playing for the Planet Alliance that comprises of CEOs from 14 platforms and games makers, including Sony Interactive Entertainment, Microsoft, Google Stadia, Rovio, Supercell, Sybo, Ubisoft and WildWorks, were present to showcase their commitments. The Alliance intends to support companies in sharing learning and monitoring progress on the environmental agenda.
As a coincidence I found out that UNEP was working with GRID-Arendal on this alliance located out of Norway (where I am):
“Update: Twenty-one of the biggest companies in the video games industry formally committed to harness the power of their platforms to take action on the climate crisis. Together, they launched the Playing For The Planet Alliance on September 23, 2019, at UN Headquarters in New York, on the occasion of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit”
However…
If most of these companies are moving into the cloud are they taking this commitment seriously? Does consumer-driven easy-of-use necessitate a move towards a form of gaming that may be less environmentally friendly than an already damaging industry?
I saw an article that made this clear with Google Stadia called:
Google’s Stadia is the future of gaming, and that’s bad news for our planet.
It was written by Dr. Evan Mills, leader of the Green Gaming project and former Senior Scientist from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, who spent years looking into the largely neglected question of how gaming devices consume energy. As such it has a great depth and is a comprehensive place to start.
It found that Google may be one of the more responsible actors in terms of renewable energy, yet there is a problem of figures being known or unknown.
“If it catches on, it will effectively kill off the home console and physical games, replacing them with the cloud. Every game you own will live in the cloud, accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection, playable on any device. The goal is nothing less than a reinvention of the entire video game industry […] Nvidia and Sony don’t make these figures known and haven’t made any public commitments to renewable energy for their cloud gaming services […] Research shows that streaming entertainment from the cloud uses more energy overall even when it lets the viewer — or gamer — slim down their energy use at home.”
Artificial Intelligence to Predict Behaviour
When you throw a bad habit and mixes it with a bad habit — you get game streaming with AI. Sounds like pretty horrible idea for the environment if you ask me. Not only would there be an attempt at predicting user behaviour there would likely be an overview of the actions and understanding of these to aggregate data user for user patterns.
How you game could be used to target advertising as well.
If a company understands what you are interested in it may help them sell you products — a typical tale.
So if we combine the possibility of both types it sounds like… Well, bullshit?
We can wonder why the goal in marketing and product development of gaming is not to make the most climate-friendly console and game. What can we do to make it more of a clear priority?
I am not proposing we should avoid playing games at all and gamification is doing much good in other industries such as healthcare. I grew up and got closer through both my brothers through playing video games.
I think ‘why do we play’ might be a bit too big for now, but why can we not play better in terms of environmental standards?
- Make it easier to repair a console
- Have open-source hardware solutions
- Encourage gamers to play offline
- Discourage use of energy intensive tech for monitoring or enhancement
- Fair sourcing of resources to build gaming equipment
Plenty of possibilities if responsibility can be taken.
This is #500daysofAI and you are reading article 182. I write one new article about or related to artificial intelligence every day for 500 days.
