5 ms·

This could serve as a good example to aspiring developers and system administrators of the value and sanctity of user data. > Over 600 hours on 2 different cha

This could serve as a good example to aspiring developers and system administrators of the value and sanctity of user data. > Over 600 hours on 2 different characters. Both with 250 XP and at level 70 and 72. GONE!!!!!!! Imagine their data is gone for good. What compensation could the vendor possibly provide? Would $10,000 do it? User data can be irreplaceable.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
For a game? Arguably, any "damages" suffered by folks who lost data here would be limited to the amount they paid in order to play the game. You could go even further down that route and say that the game probably provides at least as much entertainment value as seeing a feature film in a theater. Since the average movie ticket cost is somewhere around $10 and the average feature film runs between 75 and 210 minutes (both according to some quick Google searches), you could say the players already got ~$3/hour in value simply from playing already. Sure, this seems like a silly exercise, but, I could imagine it getting parsed out in a similar manner should the discussion of compensation turn serious.
- dmos62 4y ago
  The player did not lose 600 hours of entertainment, so I don't think that the movie comparison works. This seems similar to burning your photo album. There might have been an emotional attachment, and a significant non-financial investment, but how do you translate either of those into money? Eye for an eye, maybe?
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    No, they did not lose 600 hours of entertainment. That's the point. They lost at most what they paid to play the game. They received back 600 hours of entertainment, making their net loss equal to: $COST_TO_PLAY - $HOURS_PLAYED * $ENTERTAINMENT_VALUE_PER_HOUR_PLAYED My suspicion is that for any reasonable values of the above variables, that loss is going to end up negative for most players. In other words, the appropriate compensation here is zip, zero, nada for most people. Even if you factor in emotional attachment, for an emotionally healthy individual, the value of a few days feeling like "oh, damn, that really sucked" probably isn't much, either. In fact, I'd say it's probably zero here, too, since most people will just get over it without any help or external cost to themselves. At least that's what I imagine my lawyer telling me if I called up with a story about how some internet gaming company lost my data. In actual fact, they'd probably just tell me I had no case, then laugh about me after hanging up the phone.
    - onli 4y ago
      Thats not how games, damages and emotional attachment work. When I was a bit younger I lost a save game of a SNES rpg - and cried. Which I think was completely normal now. So much time and investment just gone, it can be heartbreaking. Only non-players could take the position that game time just vanishes, with some enjoyment happening during the experience. That is true, but only for the most basic arcade games of the past.
      - Closi 4y ago
        I think there are two different things being described between you and the parent comment - One is the value of the emotional damage and possible importance of the data, and the other is how compensation is likely to be practically calculated by a court (i.e. if you paid £30 for the game, played it for 100 hours, and then lost game-save data but could still play the game, it is unlikely that a court would assign compensation in reality, particularly compensation above and beyond the retail price).
        gpderetta 4y ago
        You used GBP so I assume you are from UK; I think that UK and US jurisprudence differ a lot here. In UK compensations almost always only cover provable financial loss (unless there is explicit statute saying otherwise, for example injuries), while US is more willing to assign value to emotional damage and inflict punitive compensation.
RuggedPineapple 4y ago
I'm having a hard time trying to tell if this comment is sarcastic or not, so at the risk of Poeing myself, of course they wouldn't pay them 10k dollars. The client has lost nothing. They still got the gameplay hours. They still have those experiences. In a very real legal sense they don't need anything to be made whole. They paid for the right to play a game. They played the game. They can continue to play the game. There is no monetary value they need to be compensated. At an absolute worst case scenario the devs can twiddle some bits and add levels and xp to new profiles for the player, but that would be in the realm of 'being nice' and not 'was sued into doing it'.
- Teever 4y ago
  OP didn't suggest that the companies will actually pay the users $10k. They're asking "what is 600 hours of game time worth to the user?" Because whatever it is to the users, it means a lot, more than the company could pay them.
  - _flux 4y ago
    But ultimately, why is that even a question? The still have that 600 hours of playing they've done, nothing can change the past. What has changed is the future games: to get to the same point the were at they would, presumably, need to play about the same amount of hours. Maybe if they truly won't be able to restore the data (I expect they will), then perhaps some sort of conversion from hours for "in game" currency could be used, where the currency could be used for buing items or others stuff (map visibility?) applicable to the game. I haven't played Ghost Recon, though, so I don't know this is at all a realistic solution to the game.. and it would be relatively big effort to make this system for just this (hopefully) single-time situation.
- pmontra 4y ago
  They lost that they probably won't be able to experience the game play of a 70+ level character anymore unless they want to invest another 600 hours in an unreliable game system. My PS2 game saves from 20 years ago are still there though.
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

actually_a_dog 4y ago

For a game? Arguably, any "damages" suffered by folks who lost data here would be limited to the amount they paid in order to play the game. You could go even further down that route and say that the game probably provides at least as much entertainment value as seeing a feature film in a theater. Since the average movie ticket cost is somewhere around $10 and the average feature film runs between 75 and 210 minutes (both according to some quick Google searches), you could say the players already got ~$3/hour in value simply from playing already. Sure, this seems like a silly exercise, but, I could imagine it getting parsed out in a similar manner should the discussion of compensation turn serious.

dmos62 4y ago
The player did not lose 600 hours of entertainment, so I don't think that the movie comparison works. This seems similar to burning your photo album. There might have been an emotional attachment, and a significant non-financial investment, but how do you translate either of those into money? Eye for an eye, maybe?
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  No, they did not lose 600 hours of entertainment. That's the point. They lost at most what they paid to play the game. They received back 600 hours of entertainment, making their net loss equal to: $COST_TO_PLAY - $HOURS_PLAYED * $ENTERTAINMENT_VALUE_PER_HOUR_PLAYED My suspicion is that for any reasonable values of the above variables, that loss is going to end up negative for most players. In other words, the appropriate compensation here is zip, zero, nada for most people. Even if you factor in emotional attachment, for an emotionally healthy individual, the value of a few days feeling like "oh, damn, that really sucked" probably isn't much, either. In fact, I'd say it's probably zero here, too, since most people will just get over it without any help or external cost to themselves. At least that's what I imagine my lawyer telling me if I called up with a story about how some internet gaming company lost my data. In actual fact, they'd probably just tell me I had no case, then laugh about me after hanging up the phone.
  - onli 4y ago
    Thats not how games, damages and emotional attachment work. When I was a bit younger I lost a save game of a SNES rpg - and cried. Which I think was completely normal now. So much time and investment just gone, it can be heartbreaking. Only non-players could take the position that game time just vanishes, with some enjoyment happening during the experience. That is true, but only for the most basic arcade games of the past.
    - Closi 4y ago
      I think there are two different things being described between you and the parent comment - One is the value of the emotional damage and possible importance of the data, and the other is how compensation is likely to be practically calculated by a court (i.e. if you paid £30 for the game, played it for 100 hours, and then lost game-save data but could still play the game, it is unlikely that a court would assign compensation in reality, particularly compensation above and beyond the retail price).
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        You used GBP so I assume you are from UK; I think that UK and US jurisprudence differ a lot here. In UK compensations almost always only cover provable financial loss (unless there is explicit statute saying otherwise, for example injuries), while US is more willing to assign value to emotional damage and inflict punitive compensation.

RuggedPineapple 4y ago

I'm having a hard time trying to tell if this comment is sarcastic or not, so at the risk of Poeing myself, of course they wouldn't pay them 10k dollars. The client has lost nothing. They still got the gameplay hours. They still have those experiences. In a very real legal sense they don't need anything to be made whole. They paid for the right to play a game. They played the game. They can continue to play the game. There is no monetary value they need to be compensated. At an absolute worst case scenario the devs can twiddle some bits and add levels and xp to new profiles for the player, but that would be in the realm of 'being nice' and not 'was sued into doing it'.

Teever 4y ago
OP didn't suggest that the companies will actually pay the users $10k. They're asking "what is 600 hours of game time worth to the user?" Because whatever it is to the users, it means a lot, more than the company could pay them.
- _flux 4y ago
  But ultimately, why is that even a question? The still have that 600 hours of playing they've done, nothing can change the past. What has changed is the future games: to get to the same point the were at they would, presumably, need to play about the same amount of hours. Maybe if they truly won't be able to restore the data (I expect they will), then perhaps some sort of conversion from hours for "in game" currency could be used, where the currency could be used for buing items or others stuff (map visibility?) applicable to the game. I haven't played Ghost Recon, though, so I don't know this is at all a realistic solution to the game.. and it would be relatively big effort to make this system for just this (hopefully) single-time situation.
pmontra 4y ago
They lost that they probably won't be able to experience the game play of a 70+ level character anymore unless they want to invest another 600 hours in an unreliable game system. My PS2 game saves from 20 years ago are still there though.
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]