That's not making the same point at all, because that doesn't have consequences outside of the game itself. Games having consequences within the context of the game is hardly new or clever and isn't remotely the same thing as the game having consequences for more than itself. I'm not saying that you're proposing a bad idea, just that it's an idea completely outside the scope or goals we're talking about.
Lose/Lose does not really express it's point. It is a game that only exists for controversy. Whatever message about consequences it may be trying to convey is lost, as people who *do* run the game break their computers or use some exploit or workaround to negate the consequences.
The choice to
not run the game (or to run it and die, erasing the program) expresses the point. Choosing whether or not to go through with playing the game in the first place is half the game, and makes the point in itself. Choosing to do it and fucking up your computer also expresses it, and it's honestly completely beside the point whether or not it's theoretically possible to cheat at it. Cheating at that game is entirely pointless, as it evades the premise the game is built around. It's effectively irrelevant to the question of whether or not the game succeeds in what it sets out to do artistically.
And yes, it's probably also meant to generate controversy and get people to talk about the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not all there is to it.
Let me tell you about a game with a similar message, one that you, after playing, will actually *remember*, and not simply because it deleted your thesis or because you set a high score by "cheating" it. Go here. In that game, through some clever data storage, when you lose, it doesn't delete itself, but losing is *permanent*, and nothing short of an OS reinstall will change that. THAT game conveys it's message far more effectively.
It's not the same message, because the consequences in that only relate to the game itself. The point of Lose/Lose is that doing things in the game (namely, killing things) has consequences that extend beyond the act itself and beyond the immediate context (the game). "If you lose, you lose the game forever" is a very different (although sort of related) theme.
Now, the self-corrupting game idea *does* have consequences outside of the game, because, as a key point, actions in one save file by one character may affecty any other savefiles/characters without warning, but it limits itself in what it alters so that the average user won't have to worry about damaging a critical file and losing their job over it.
All of those things are within the context of the game itself, so no, it doesn't. You say that it has consequences "outside of the game", yet every example you list is within the game.
The average user playing Lose/Lose won't damage a critical file and lose their job because (provided they actually understand the gigantic freaking warning) they're
not going to play it (or, if they play, won't actually kill any of the creatures). That's pretty much the point: It makes killing things in the game consequential to the degree that you
won't do it if you're sane, as a statement about the fact that in most games, you make decisions that by right
should be consequential in that way (e.g. killing dudes) but that are not. Not that I think it's really criticizing that kind of game, but it's a clever little way of simulating the fact that your actions actually have consequences beyond the immediate scope of what you're doing.