3 ms·

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

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.

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.