fireship4

I know what Elvis said, I am saying that nothing relevant has changed, VAT was always applicable, charging it now (if that is what they are doing) is not the fulfllment of a new law. You can further the discussion by disproving this, as his assertion is not UK tax law, nor did he in fact mention VAT, it is simply presumed by the percentage increase. After all that I've had to repeat myself and waste a fourpence.

Enforcing VAT only on domestic products when it applies to all would be opposite of protectionist, and remedying that should not be cast as protectionist. However, no changes that would apply to the digital sale of the game have in fact been made. Any changes to import of the game physically are changed to the point at which VAT is charged, and would only affect someone who was evading tax in the first instance. We are talking about the game, to which no new charges apply. However I will say again that VAT has not been added to anything. The relief for consignments under £15 has been removed, the EU will be doing the same thing in July 2021, so it would be disingenuous to say it happened because we left the EU. You have not mentioned any specific charges that have changed, VAT nor customs. These non-existing changes are here being related to a narrative of protectionism and making leaving the EU look better, I am not interested in speculating on this. Battlefront has always had to pay VAT, and it had to be charged at the point of sale on the digital product, unless someone can show a relevant exemption. If you are correct that the 20% increase is VAT (again this is not obviously correct as you suggest) then that would suggest Battlefront had not been meeting this requirement up to now. What additional taxation? Again VAT is applicable to all goods, and customs duty was present before. No-one here has said a free-trade agreement is tax fraud, nor is VAT being charged twice - it is either charged at the point of sale or on import, or deferred to a later date, and can be reclaimed if the product is sold on. I will avoid discussing economic theory with you, this discussion is too broad already. Can we plese try to narrow this discussion back down, and sharpen it up. We were discussing the reason for the 20% increase in price of the game in question for customers in the UK. Rambling paragraphs with unsubstantiated or vague assertions should be avoided. Discussion of the benefits or otherwise of one or another trade policy should in my opinion be avoided also.

You are assuming that because the change was made around the UK's departure from the EU, that it was necessitated by it. However, I am saying that there has been no change to the relevant tax law, which can be easily disproven by posting the relevant legislation. Who is upset? I am saying you are wrong to ascribe the payment of VAT to the UK leaving the EU. An academic argument for the sake of rational discourse.

Did you have mods installed before? Are your graphics settings the same? Just making sure until someone who knows the default models better comes along.

According to "The Russian Way of War", a first-echelon motor-rifle company with attached tank platoon has a frontage of up to one kilometer and narrows to 500m in the breakthrough sector.

You shouldn't have to delete it, just make sure Steam is pointed at the right folder, delete the .exe and then tell Steam to recheck the game files. That should work if the folder structure and the files are the same, and any differences should result in replacement. The game files in your user/documents folder might need moving too, I'm not sure. Worth a try at least, if it saves you time.

VAT has not changed, so the price increase cannot be the addition of VAT, unless it was not paid previously. Whether or not a registered office in the EU was used or not is immaterial as VAT is still applicable in that scenario. Again, VAT was always supposed to be payable on the game, whatever country it originated from. It is not exempt from what I can tell. According to gov.uk: "To qualify as gifts, goods must be: described as gifts on the customs declaration for a birthday, anniversary or other occasion bought and sent between individuals (not companies) intended for personal use" The quote you used says: "Under the new rules, anyone in the UK receiving a gift from the EU worth more than £39 may now face a bill for import VAT - with many items charged at 20%." VAT was always payable, this just means the VAT is charged at a different point (at import as opposed to point of sale). VAT relief for gifts is not applicable to this discussion, and was £39 since at least 2016. LVCR similarly does not apply, and VAT relief designed to stop wastage on checking low value consignments has little to do with leaving the EU. The same goes for customs duty, which does not apply either in this case. Again, VAT was always payable as far as I understand, it is collectable by the seller unless they determine the buyer is exempt, with a VAT number for example so they can sell the product onwards. How it is enforced is somewhat irrelevant, it is the seller's responsibility to collect. Case in point: Battlefront will remain liable, and if everything is not in order HMRC will come for those little thumbies sooner or later. Finally (please god), it was simply a humorously funny joke. You asked "which UK business is disadvantaged when we buy something from BF?". I jovially suggested the tax man was trying to disuade us from playing computer games, which generates little revenue, from which the state may take it's share. I then furtively suggested smiling at old ladies, of which an exemplar: was in a similar category, and should perhaps be taxed also. All in jest of course, since smiling at the aged produces little monetary gain, yet does as much good to the heart of the smiler as it does to that of the smilee, and digital products are not sent to all and sundry via your face. All clear? Because this is becoming a quote-storm.

Sorry to pull out a post from earlier in the thread, but this is well put. This is one of a couple of big issues that the Graviteam games suffer from. They designed a great engine, but in the name of playing at a higher tactical level, they remove fine control over individual units and add command delays. These are both good ideas but as implemented they made the game less realistic not more. AI is not advanced enough to do what you would do in the place of a soldier, squad or platoon leader, and they end up doing frustrating things.

Double post. Delete if possible thanks.

I don't think you owe me anything, "people want things for free" is not the appropriate form to deal with my criticism of charging for patches, or making them free via a platform, yet still charging full price (I would understand server costs) for them if people can't use that platform. You've got a community here who post every day and help your other customers and talk up your games and make maps and skins etc. etc. without having to spend a penny either. Either way I didn't intend to gum up this thread with a rant, it has run it's course and I think we've both said what we wanted to say. Time to cook for the evening.

Glass half empty: developer would like to continue charging for a patch but it is too hard so far, wouldn't take 30 seconds to de-fragment the multiplayer base if it took that long, or reduce the price of a patch for those that cannot get it for free via Steam (or heaven forbid poorer people) for one reason or another :P 0% fat milk: developer loosing playerbase due to poor business and productivity decisions, despite having best-in-class engine at release, a lack of progress has led to competitors in a relatively small niche ending up ahead. To be clear, I am saying this as a fan of the game, who hopes the best for the game and the team.

VAT applies to US imports, the US seller does not charge sales tax, but should charge VAT to the consumer as 20% is payable on import. If there is a separate importer they pay the import VAT (the same) and then get a rebate after they sell it on to you. This is all separate to customs & excise, which may be what you are referring to when you say that purchases under a certain amount are not charged.

Ok sorry, I misunderstood this. By logistics I assume you mean server costs/admin time of allowing downloads of something they can now get for free via Steam? Why then continue selling it at full price even though users would only now buy in their right mind if they couldn't use Steam?

As far as I know, nothing relevant has changed. The 20% increase added for UK purchases means either: Battlefront were paying VAT before on digital sales to UK consumers, adjusting the base price of the product to make the final price the same between US/EU markets, and have now decided to increase their prices by 20% for the UK. Battlefront were not paying VAT before on sales to UK consumers, and now they are.

OK, any plans to change this and make the patch/"game engine upgrade" available to non-steam users, or update their available base-game downloads?

Sorry Elvis, I said through battlefront.com, not Steam. For example, it seems I can download the latest Black Sea patches through battlefront.com (though the base-game download is still 1.03 on my account, and my game is patched to 1.04).

I am unaware of this, could you point me towards the legislation? As far as I'm aware this isn't true, unless you mean customs duty, which is different from VAT. Customs duty is applied to adjust the prices of foreign goods in relation to domestic goods (correct me if I'm wrong) for one or another end. While part of the EU customs duty was not paid on products bought or sold across it. I think there was a system in place for EU countries so that VAT was paid once (or paid and then reclaimed) on a product sold across borders, like the in-country systems. Therefore the VAT was paid on it one way or another. If the game is for yourself, declaring it as a gift is tax fraud. Otherwise import VAT can be reclaimed by the importer, and is charged to the consumer. This is effectively same as all products regardless of origin that VAT applies to.

When people are playing computer games all day they aren't working. It's the same with smiling at old ladies. A tax of this sort is not charged on imports which will be sold on to consumers, it is charged at the point of sale (or paid and reclaimed), and not charged twice on the same product. It is charged on all consumer products which are not exempt for one reason or another (basic food items or sanitary products for example). It is a tax designed to adjust with spending on consumer good, but not affect businesses. UK purchasers were in fact getting Battlefront games tax-free up to now it seems, giving Battlefront an advantage over other sellers.

Good to know.

Since all Black Sea owners can, if I understand correctly, get the latest version now via Steam, will you be allowing those who bought Black Sea on release to download the latest patches through battlefront.com?

Or use the infantry-only rifle companies that have organic javelin squads, and add Strykers. Not perfect either of course.

Also, don't fire rockets and missles from inside buildings! Unless it is the AT4 CS.

Technically correct, the best kind of correct. It seems 21 & 23 left UKSF in 2014 and became part of the newly formed 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade, but were re-integrated in 2019. All of this is according to Wikipedia (apart from the quote I used from the MOD website you linked above), citing Jane's International Defence Review and an Army briefing note, (both not readable on the net at first glance), and an article in the Telegraph (behind a paywall).

I think the British SAS went through a reorganisation relatively recently as well, they got rid of the volunteer regiment if I remember correctly, known as "The Artist's Rifles" which had been around for a long time that civilians could apply to join. I think it was absorbed into something else and the SAS just recruit from the serving military (mostly the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marines I would guess). A shame in a sense as it was a characteristic thing where you would have a certain type of person applying directly and going through selection. I'm not sure of the root cause, I seem to remember something about a lack of standards in some sense. I hope the Australian military are able to learn from and correct whatever has been going on. This sort of thing, apart from the moral aspect, is destructive in its own right as you loose the chain of responsibility and build parallel structures when you cover for others doing things against the law or regulations, and things can get out of control. I sometimes meditate on whether I would be strong enough to be the one to make a stand against what can become a sort of hidden code of silence and acceptance in a situation like that, especially dealing with the occasional nutter who can end up in units that operate on the edge like these ones.

The 2017 document is supposed to be the spiritual successor to "Soviet Military Power" which was first published in 1981 as a public document for stated purpose of informing them as to the balance of power, and seems much more in-depth. The last long (164 pages) version I found was SMP1989: http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1989.pdf, with SMP1990: http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1990.pdf being a bit shorter, and the 1991 version being renamed "Military Forces in Transition": https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/3/137881/0300_Military_forces_in_transition_1991_ENG.pdf and running in at 65 pages. If you could be a little more specific with your criticism we might learn something. When I first saw it on the forum we had a little discussion and it seemed to me to be a bit light on detail. I remember thinking that it lacked anything about tactical nuke doctrine, which had been mentioned elsewhere as something they had differences in doctrine on. Orders of battle at a low level like in "The Russian Way of War" linked previously are probably the closest in form to what was asked for - the sources linked within may also be useful. For higher level orders of battle I found another publication called "Russia's Military Posture: Ground Forces Order of Battle": http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Russian Ground Forces OOB_ISW CTP_0.pdf