Depend on what you have signed in the contract.
If you have allowed the company to change its plan, you are not entitled to a refund.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
If you have allowed the company to change its plan, you are not entitled to a refund.
Craith
Volunteer Moderator
I don't think that the EU-legal system for customers agrees with that.
Anyway, changing the product (mostly by removing stuff) does smell quite a bit like a scam though, doesn't it?
So, would you say it is ethical for someone to write a contract and put in a clause that allows them to unilaterially change the terms of the contract without the approval of the other party?
Sure, you can blame it on the other party. They should have read the contract... but how many people actually read the EULA when buying online products?
There is an assumption, perhaps a bad one, that when you buy a product, or preorder/pledge, the company will try and deliver on what they have promised.
There is a term for doing what is being described here. Its called bait and switch.
Goodies/rewards offered in counterpart of pledges are considered as legal products by some legislations and so, have VAT.
Crowdfunding triggers VAT registration - www.rossmartin.co.uk
In Lunar Missions Limited v HMRC [2018] TC06286, the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the receipt of funds raised on Kickstarter triggered an obligation to register for VAT.
AN UPCOMING SHOCK FOR CROWDFUNDERS - VAT ON PLEDGE REWARDS?
AN UPCOMING SHOCK FOR CROWDFUNDERS - VAT ON PLEDGE REWARDS kickstarter indiegogo VAT European Commission TAX Value Added Tax crowdfunding pledge rewards supplier game video peter lewin legalgameruk legal gamer proposals taxable input output backer HMRC @
legalgamer.weebly.com
VAT Change Announcement - Roberts Space Industries | Follow the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42
Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.
robertsspaceindustries.com
You suggest we should get rid of EULA ? They are of no use ?
And that's what I see with CIG. They try to deliver what they have promised. Everytime I log in the alpha, I have proof of that before my eyes...
You're missing a critical word in that. No, you don't apply VAT to pledges because that is not what a pledge is.
You skipped over the word "rewards", and that's key here because it defines what the actual problem is and why this proposition is now made.
A pledge is one of two things: security for a loan, or a promise to buy a service or good at a later time (in crowdfunding, generally also only under certain circumstances). What they're clarifying here is that "pledges" are not actually pledges in the vague and inaccurate meaning often applied to crowdfunding -- they are, in actuality, sales. They're saying that the whole "it's a pledge, not a purchase" is a false argument because it very clearly is not a pledge and very clearly is a purchase, and therefore VAT should apply. You'll also note that there is even language about exemptions for when you actually do pledge to donate, because at that point, it is no longer a purchase but exactly that: a donation, and VAT does not apply to those.
So your supporting documentation actually speaks against your argument.
And at this stage, that is all besides the point anyway because the crowdfunding campaign ended almost a decade ago. You are now only ever buying virtual goods in a store. At no point are you pledging in any sense of the word — you are not receiving money from CI¬G as a loan, using some property of yours as security, nor are you promising to donate cash later. You are engaging in a direct exchange of cash for goods. That is a purchase. That is why VAT is applied.
What on earth did you misread to hallucinate that any such suggestion was made?
There is very little to suggest anything of the kind in what they actually show off, much less in what they deliver.
Last edited:
Craith
Volunteer Moderator
like Virtual Reality?
or 100 systems?
or a singleplayer/coop SQ42 that leads into the open Star Citizen?
EULA dont matter when they make a party waive legal rights or obligations. They are simply void in that case. But you would need to take it to court and frankly - who does so?
Not there yet doesn't mean they will not release them.
You are saying they not try to deliver 100 system ? Or have forgotten VR ? Or that SQ42 doesn't exist ?
No, but it does mean that you're not actually seeing them trying to deliver what they've promised.
You're only picking out a very tiny sliver of things on the vast list of promises — things that they actually delivered very long ago — and from this minute amount assume that everything else is also happening.
Their saying that they're doing something is not the same thing as their actually delivering. As they've amply demonstrated, even showing something off is wholly non-indicative of any real delivery.
Yep, I say it's all nollocks to scam people's money. If they would try, they would have already delivered.
Here's a more exhaustive reference of promises and completion:
https://starcitizentracker.github.io/
So if they don't try to do it, Pyro is also a lie and will never come to the PU ?
…and note that this list is not weighted in terms of actual effort or size of the deliverable. Having “only one in-game currency” (which is a promise not to develop something) is given equal weight to moddable muliplayer or player-run servers or offline play mode or the famous 100 systems.
That's not actually what he said, now was it? Are you at all capable of making an actual argument and not be 400% reliant on fallacies to fail to make a cogent or coherent point?
The thing is, all we know is that cig are saying these things. That is very different from them demonstrating that they are actually doing them. SQ42 and the roadmap are very clear examples.
Ho, but I try. He's saying that CIG is not trying to deliver 100 systems. For future reference, I need to know at which number of systems delivered he should acknowledge that CIG is effectively trying to deliver.
2, 3, 10 or 99 systems ?
Because saying CIG is trying to deliver 100 systems can only be said before the release of the said 100 systems.
And that's because even by your lax standards, there is very little evidence to suggest that they are. Not to mention that, no, he's not actually saying that. He's saying that if they were really trying, they'd be able to show it off by now. The fact that it's not there shows that whatever it is they're doing, "trying to deliver" is a vast overstatement of their efforts.
You really don't. What you need is probably more along the lines of frequency, as in "not a single-digit number in a decade".
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
Pyro is 100 planets in one?
Will be the first released step toward this goal. After Pyro, there will be no further technical block to add other systems.
You are late on your Bingo.BINGO!
And for me BINGO!
too (I have a checkbox for the reference to the SC cultist bingo from haters).This goal will be never reached. It's bogus. It's lies to pull money from pockets. Just like "we're making 2 games here". 8 years and most of them spend on making another planet. There is no backbone for further planets. the whole design and tech doesn't allow it. They can't solve it.
They could but it'd make it a very substandard MMO and demystify the dream. That's why they don't, won't and never will. And particularly are never going to.