4 ms·

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 cl

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.
alpaca128 4y ago
> The client has lost nothing. The very existence of savegames proves you wrong.
- RuggedPineapple 4y ago
  How? The client paid for the ability to play the game. They can still play the game.
  - alpaca128 4y ago
    Your argument is like telling someone who just lost all their holiday photos "but you didn't lose anything, you can still use your camera!" Not everything of value has a price tag.
    - RuggedPineapple 4y ago
      Legally that's a very similar argument, yes. You act like that's some sort of 'gotcha' but that's actually a perfect example. I'd be hard pressed to find precedent for any award that wasn't limited to the cost of the film.
concordDance 4y ago
Do you believe in the idea of emotional damages? Because losing a save can be an emotional event with feelings of loss higher than loss of physical goods depending on what was in it. I'd expect even long heavily customizable RPGs to top out at 150 hours of actual feelings of lost progress, but that's still a considerable sum. I don't think courts would want to try valuing that though due to how such a precedent could be abused.
- RuggedPineapple 4y ago
  If you tried to argue emotional damages over a lost save game in terms of compensation I'd say you were proceeding pro se at that point, because no lawyer is going to risk the court sanctions and harm to their professional reputation.
wolverine876 4y ago
> of course they wouldn't pay them 10k dollars Right, I wasn't talking about legally enforceable damages. My point was about how valuable the data is to the user: If they offered $50 to the user, would the user feel satisfied? I doubt it after 600 hours of gameplay. $1,000? $10,000? The numbers are much too high for the company to pay - that's just a dramatization of one sense in which the data is irreplaceable. As far as actual enforceability, if the agreement between the user and company includes a clause saying they company will preserve the user's data, or if there is a legal or technical requirement for the user to store their data with the company, maybe the user would have a claim. But I doubt there is much precedent for calculating damages.

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.

alpaca128 4y ago

> The client has lost nothing. The very existence of savegames proves you wrong.

RuggedPineapple 4y ago
How? The client paid for the ability to play the game. They can still play the game.
- alpaca128 4y ago
  Your argument is like telling someone who just lost all their holiday photos "but you didn't lose anything, you can still use your camera!" Not everything of value has a price tag.
  - RuggedPineapple 4y ago
    Legally that's a very similar argument, yes. You act like that's some sort of 'gotcha' but that's actually a perfect example. I'd be hard pressed to find precedent for any award that wasn't limited to the cost of the film.

concordDance 4y ago

Do you believe in the idea of emotional damages? Because losing a save can be an emotional event with feelings of loss higher than loss of physical goods depending on what was in it. I'd expect even long heavily customizable RPGs to top out at 150 hours of actual feelings of lost progress, but that's still a considerable sum. I don't think courts would want to try valuing that though due to how such a precedent could be abused.

RuggedPineapple 4y ago
If you tried to argue emotional damages over a lost save game in terms of compensation I'd say you were proceeding pro se at that point, because no lawyer is going to risk the court sanctions and harm to their professional reputation.

wolverine876 4y ago

> of course they wouldn't pay them 10k dollars Right, I wasn't talking about legally enforceable damages. My point was about how valuable the data is to the user: If they offered $50 to the user, would the user feel satisfied? I doubt it after 600 hours of gameplay. $1,000? $10,000? The numbers are much too high for the company to pay - that's just a dramatization of one sense in which the data is irreplaceable. As far as actual enforceability, if the agreement between the user and company includes a clause saying they company will preserve the user's data, or if there is a legal or technical requirement for the user to store their data with the company, maybe the user would have a claim. But I doubt there is much precedent for calculating damages.