Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Viajero]

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.

So @LittleAnt , do you agree now SC ships, game packages etc are just purchases or still think they are something else? If something else please tell us what and link to a formal/legal definition if possible, so to avoid personal vague interpretations.

 

[MTBFritz]

Will be the first released step toward this goal. After Pyro, there will be no further technical block to add other systems.

you must be new to Star Citizen

 

[Skizomeuh]

…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.

Let's also note that even done/implemented topics are for most at best barebone tier 0.

 

[Craith]

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 ?

on Star Systems:

create entire new star systems

creating entire new star systems is a very very long shot from 100 systems. They haven't even finished one small system yet. And they have to outsource it, just to be able to get some new star systems in. Even if they speed up by a factor of 10 with their magical Jesus-tech, we'd wait another 80 years to get our promised 100 systems ... an even more fantasy-factor of 100 would take us to just 8 more years ...

on VR:

There are of course challenges ahead. Silvan says that while implementing VR into the game engine itself “isn’t a big deal,” that making it actually playable is actually the true task at hand.

“I’m mostly concerned about tieing [sic] it into our animation system and what locomotion we can offer. Nobody wants to have teleporting players in the verse right?”

well, that is exactly what makes VR next to impossible in Star Citizen - they use lots of forced animations (climbing, etc), that not only look unnatural in many cases but also cause nausea when forced on you in VR. The locomotion is much simpler, since VR players are well able to use WASD or similar locomotion, but having animations that move your view without you in control is a no-go. The current HUD is also not designed for VR, even though the article claims they worked on a VR-able hud in 2017.
So what is their plan? redo all animations (again?), redo the HUD (again?)? Why make a new HUD and new animations when you already know they won't work. And if you didn't know it (again?), how do you think you will ever be able to implement VR? (I agree that just rendering it in 3D is next to trivial, you probably can already do that with VorpX).

on SQ42:
It doesn't exist, even though it should've been released 4 years ago. But even ignoring that, they have since removed SQ42 from Star Citizen, no more plan to continue in the open world after finishing the campaign, and also removal of the cooperative playthrough. I think we will get some kind of singleplayer SQ42 at some point, heavily scripted, but that is not what was promised back in 2014.

 

[ECity]

Today [release of Cyberpunk] is a very bad day for backers. Expect lots of whining and moaning.

I was right....

 

[ECity]

So if they don't try to do it, Pyro is also a lie and will never come to the PU ?

Who led Mr. Nowak to believe this in December of 2018?

My expectations for 2019 is the full delivery of Arccorp and MicroTech and all of its cities, outposts and moons. The repair, salvage and refuel mechanics. The addition of the second solar system. Possibly Nyx.

LINK

 

[VR Golgot]

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...

Well we know from past experience that you think the Pico plushy represents a step towards iCache, and ergo Server Meshing. (It doesn't. It's just another 'persistent object'. Which replaced other prior 'persistent objects'. Because apparently they struggle to have too many of them )

So I can almost believe you do see a very bad chess game, a gravity gun first prototyped in 2015, menu refining, and the painfully slow planet production of a single system as stepping stones towards SC's gaming nirvana . But it ain't necessarily so. And at this point, 8yrs+ down the line, you'd have to squint pretty damn hard to perceive them as such.

Or have forgotten VR ?

That VR quote is particularly weak, as it's clearly from a dreaming junior dev, who subsequently got smacked down for talking out of line.

Personally I think this take from a senior dev is probably more grounded: "Sorry to say, do not hold your breath for this. Ignoring the render tech for VR itself (which given the work we’ve done, would definitely be a read-and-rewrite job, not a merge-this-file job), making a game properly VR compliant takes a lot of work at the design and testing level regardless of the engine used. We’d probably need to get the framerate up a bit higher too, come to think of it.". Shame he left eh? (The ones with practical concerns always seem to )

But we don't really need aspirational or practical takes like these to see that VR is a hugely unlikely addition to SC. We can already see that Chris 'twitch MMO with single-player graphics' Roberts can't make the necessary compromises to make the core game performant enough as it is. And we can also see baffling decisions like the unified character model. (I can't think of a less VR-friendly set-up than a camera attached to a third-person body model. They would have to scrap the lot and start afresh for VR. Forget all the balls about 'diagetic menus' and pick-up-able Picos. This is core, fundamental, stuff. And it's a great big barrier to entry.)

Only if the gods of foveated rendering were to smile down, and reduce the performance requirements of VR kit massively, in 5 years time, would SC stand a snowballs in hell's chance of getting VR in. And then it would be despite the core tech decisions they've made, not because of them.

---

This is the problem. They've never said 'no' to any addition. They've always said 'absolutely'. But they sure as hell haven't plotted a route to getting all of this stuff done in concert. Because the feature set is beyond improbable...

They may not have forgotten about half of this stuff. But they probably should have. Way back in the day.

haters

Bingo!

 

[marcnesiumHH]

You're missing a critical word in that. No, you don't apply VAT to pledges because that is not what a pledge is.

Hi, I am new to this thread, tho having read quite a lot over the past couple of weeks. I also digged into EULA/ TOS etc. of MoneyMaking Imperium and analysed the public accounts of the UK based Roberts' companies.

To start with the VAT thing. How Roberts and his loyal laywer (a team since the back of the days from producing unsuccessful movies at the expense of investors' in closed-ended and tax-driven funds in Germany) design their EULA/ TOS etc. has nothing to do with how tax regulators treat the 'pledges'.

At least in my country, Germany, there is VAT applied to the 'pledge' items (i.e. virtual items as well as the game). This means, that tax regulators treat the 'items' / 'services' provided like any other normal product/ service.
How tax regimes work like countries in US or UK in this case, I do not know.

 

[Tippis]

To start with the VAT thing. How Roberts and his loyal laywer (a team since the back of the days from producing unsuccessful movies at the expense of investors' in closed-ended and tax-driven funds in Germany) design their EULA/ TOS etc. has nothing to do with how tax regulators treat their 'pledges'.

At least in my country, Germany, there is VAT applied to the 'pledge' items (i.e. virtual items as well as the game). This means, that tax regulators treat the 'items' / 'services' provided like any other normal product/ service.

And that's kind of the point.

Backers have a fondness for using the nonsensical "it's a pledge, not a purchase/pre-order" argument to support the notion that consumer protection laws don't apply to the purchases made in the SC store. In actuality, as the actual tax regulations dictate and as the proposed legislation is meant to clarify, that's completely bunk. They're purchases, and no amount of calling them anything else will change what they are. They are purchases and pre-orders, simply by virtue of what the transaction entails. The transaction that is formally called a "pledge" is something quintessentially different -- it's part of the loan and pawn-shop business (and are subject to their own laws protecting both sides of transaction).

All we're seeing now is that official regulations and practices are slowly catching up to a new method of purchasing goods and services. But that does not in itself doesn't really change what was known all along (that crowdfunding "pledges" commonly aren't actually that). Rather it simply clarifies that fact.

 

[StuartGT]

It's a pledge, not a pre-order.

 

[marcnesiumHH]

They are purchases and pre-orders, simply by virtue of what the transaction entails.

In any legal relationship between two private parties you can define words like 'pledge' as you like. You could also use the word 'transaction' and define it as a pledge.
That's why the detailed definitions in any contract make the real difference.

CIG/ RSI does not sell you any product when you 'pledge' (i.e. order a virtual items and/ or the game) atm:

• Your Pledge Funds are a deposit to be used for the development and production cost of the Game, including the Pledge Items, and the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and the other RSI Services, as well as RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).

In their definition it's just money, that is used for their expenses (not just game development).

Moreover:

• The Pledge Funds will be earned by RSI at the earlier of:
  • when the Pledge Item becomes functional in Star Citizen’s Alpha Persistent Universe (or is delivered separately, such as the game Squadron 42), or
  • when your Pledge Funds have been expended for the Game Cost.

This means, any spent money (read: purchase) cannot be reclaimed if they a) have spent the money for their expenses or b) you will have received a (non-functional) ship in the game.

And note: You even not pledge for/ buy an 'item' in the promised final game. The utmost you get for your money is an item in the Alpha 'Universe' (or SQ42).

 

[Viajero]

Hi, I am new to this thread, tho having read quite a lot over the past couple of weeks. I also digged into EULA/ TOS etc. of MoneyMaking Imperium and analysed the public accounts of the UK based Roberts' companies.

To start with the VAT thing. How Roberts and his loyal laywer (a team since the back of the days from producing unsuccessful movies at the expense of investors' in closed-ended and tax-driven funds in Germany) design their EULA/ TOS etc. has nothing to do with how tax regulators treat the 'pledges'.

At least in my country, Germany, there is VAT applied to the 'pledge' items (i.e. virtual items as well as the game). This means, that tax regulators treat the 'items' / 'services' provided like any other normal product/ service.
How tax regimes work like countries in US or UK in this case, I do not know.

Exactly, the only real remaining "debate", if that, is that about these being either pre-purchases still awaiting actual delivery of the product (in which case anyone should be able to get a refund if requested according to most jurisdictions consumer law), or an already delivered early access game of some kind (instead of the complete BDSSE). According to how the existing refund lawsuits have gone it would seem CIG is de facto treating SC as a delivered product.

 

[VR Golgot]

In any legal relationship between two private parties you can define words like 'pledge' as you like. You could also use the word 'transaction' and define it as a pledge.
That's why the detailed definitions in any contract makes the real difference.

CIG/ RSI does not sell you any product when you 'pledge' (i.e. order a virtual items and/ or the game) atm:

• Your Pledge Funds are a deposit to be used for the development and production cost of the Game, including the Pledge Items, and the costs of operating and hosting the Game, the Website and the other RSI Services, as well as RSI’s corporate expenses associated with the foregoing (the “Game Cost”).

In their definition it's just money, that is used for their expenses (not just game development).

Moreover:

• The Pledge Funds will be earned by RSI at the earlier of:
  • when the Pledge Item becomes functional in Star Citizen’s Alpha Persistent Universe (or is delivered separately, such as the game Squadron 42), or
  • when your Pledge Funds have been expended for the Game Cost.

This means, any spent money (read: purchase) cannot be reclaimed if they a) have spent the money for their expenses or b) you will have received a (non-functional) ship in the game.

And note: You even not pledge for/ buy an 'item' in the promised final game. The utmost you get for your money is an item in the Alpha 'Universe' (or SQ42).

But if this were put to the test, say in a law court in Germany, the laws of the land would likely supercede these contractual semantics though right? That VAT ain't getting applied for nothing...

 

[Tippis]

In any legal relationship between two private parties you can define words like 'pledge' as you like. You could also use the word 'transaction' and define it as a pledge.

No.

A pledge is a very specific transaction; it defines a very specific relationship between lender and borrower.
The only time this isn't the case is when the pledge isn't a transaction but a promise to fulfil one in the future.

But note in particular the direction of these. If it were the actual transaction, the money would go the opposite way: you give your pledge to CIG, and they lend you money in return. You get the cash; they get the goods. You are expected to return the cash (plus interest); they are expected to return the goods. And if it's not that, and instead a promise in the future, it is again CIG doing the pledging, not you. You hand over your money right there and then -- in a purchase -- and they ostensibly pledge to provide a game in the future.

Of course, neither of those things are happening, especially not in the right direction, and the reason for that is very simple: because it's not actually a pledge. It's a (pre-)purchase.

CIG/ RSI does not sell you any product when you 'pledge'

Yes they do, not just by very definition but by the text you quote. You give them cash; you receive the product you purchase. What they do with the cash is not relevant in determining what the transaction is. Since you purchase a virtual good (and possibly some related future services), VAT is applied.

 

[marcnesiumHH]

But if this were put to the test, say in a law court in Germany, the laws of the land would likely supercede these contractual semantics though right? That VAT ain't getting applied for nothing...

That's what I was trying to say with my initial post. Tax regulations has nothing to do with how the 'product' / service is dealt with in e.g. trading law or customer protection law. And it's also handled very differently in different jurisdications. I.e. only that their 'product' / 'service' is treated as such in tax regulation (and not a pledge) has nothing to do with how it is viewed in other fields of law.
I can imagine that their definition of 'pledge' (read: purchase) can withstand up to the highest courts, because it's defined in detail. However, I can see other points of action that could lead to 'customers' getting their money back (in the EU). But like in many other legal cases, for that you would need several years of patience, good lawyers and financial strength to achieve a final judgement. Unfortunately, something that isn't seen a lot regarding gaming industry cases.

 

[LittleAnt]

And that's kind of the point.
Backers have a fondness for using the nonsensical "it's a pledge, not a purchase/pre-order" argument to support the notion that consumer protection laws don't apply to the purchases made in the SC store.

If I don't make mistake (I can have misinterpreted) :
Actually for SC, the "pledge" is about the future released SC and the real virtual good bought and identified by law is mainly an access to the alpha. So the "product" (alpha access) has been delivered (I can access the alpha).

 

[marcnesiumHH]

No.
A pledge is a very specific transaction

I am sorry, I tried to explain it in my words as good as I can. You might lack the knowledge how contracts can be defined legally and definitions in contracts not necessarily have something to do with their common definition/ usage.
And again: tax treatment has nothing to do with what CIG is 'selling' (read: providing) you.

 

[Viajero]

That's what I was trying to say with my initial post. Tax regulations has nothing to do with how the 'product' / service is dealt with in e.g. trading law or customer protection law. And it's also handled very differently in different jurisdications. I.e. only that their 'product' / 'service' is treated as such (and not a pledge) has nothing to do with how it is viewed in other fields of law.
I can imagine that their definition of 'pledge' (read: purchase) can be withstand up to the highest courts, because it's defined in detail. However, I can see other points of action that could lead to 'customers' getting their money back (in the EU). But like in many other legal cases, for that you would need several years of patience, good lawyers and financial strength to achieve a final judgement. Unfortunately, something that isn't seen a lot regarding gaming industry cases.

IANAL, and this may slightly vary depending on jurisdicton but...

What Is Value-Added Tax (VAT)?

Value-added tax (VAT) is collected on a product at every stage of the supply chain where value is added to it, from production to point of sale.

www.investopedia.com

A value-added tax (VAT) is a consumption tax placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale.

And then

Consumption Tax: Definition, Types, vs. Income Tax

A consumption tax is a tax on the purchase of a good or service. It can also be a system of taxation based on consumption rather than on added value to the economy (like income tax).

www.investopedia.com

A consumption tax is a tax on the purchase of a good or service.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You suggest we should get rid of EULA ? They are of no use ?

It has actually been suggested, but its not what i'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that when company says they will do A, they do A, not B. They deliver on what people paid for.

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...

Remember, you came much later to the project, where the current state more accurately reflects the direction they sold you on when you backed. They've still got a long way to go on delivering on those promises but its more or less the same idea. However, earlier backers were sold on a different set of promises and expectations.

But by all means, keep defending this sort of practice. But don't come crying to us should you find CIG changing what they are delivering on later if you are not happy with it. Remember, you are fine with them changing the terms.

 

[Tippis]

I am sorry, I tried to explain it in my words as good as I can.

And no amount of “explanation” will change the fact that a pledge has a very clear and well-defined meaning as far as describing a transaction. And the transaction you're doing in relation to CI¬G is not a pledge — it's a purchase.

There is no need to use your own words when the meaning is already well and clearly defined.

And again: tax treatment has nothing to do with what CIG is 'selling' (read: providing) you.

And again: tax treatment further exemplifies why the transaction you're doing in relation to CI¬G is not a pledge, but a purchase: because a pledge is something quintessentially different. What CI¬G chooses to call it does not change what it actually is — a purchase — and why they have to apply the relevant taxes.

You're getting the inference wrong, here. It's not that it is a purchase because VAT is applied; it's that VAT is applied because it's a purchase. A pledge is subject to completely different fees, regulations, and protections for both parties.

Actually for SC, the "pledge" is about the future released SC and the real virtual good bought and identified by law is mainly an access to the alpha. So the "product" (alpha access) has been delivered (I can access the alpha).

That is not a pledge (note your own need to use quotation marks). Nor is that the product they're selling. Nor does their misuse of a well-defined term — as is their standard methodology and common pattern — change what it is they're actually doing, or change the meaning of the word itself.