Sony taking 22% cut from charity Overwatch skin (Developing, Read OP)

[Expy]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sony in Australia has a "Foundation" Branch for donations.
https://www.sonyfoundation.org/
It's ran by Sony Australia, which isn't quite Sony USA but this should still be sufficient for what we're doing in regards to an international company

It asks you to donate to their charity, but won't tell you any %'ages
I dug and I dug and I found their financial report
The devil is in the details

http://au.sonynms.s3.amazonaws.com/sonyfoundation/2015/sf-ar-15-16.pdf

In 2016, Sony Australia pocketed $959,757 from donations that should be going to charity.
Fuck.
Off.

I don't want to see anybody defending this shit right now.

If that's not enough for you, here's the fucking audit

Signed and signatured by an australian auditor.

It's official: Sony wants to profit from cancer research and charity.

Click to shrink...

What do you think charitable organizations do?

 

[noyram23]

Fucking Sony, this is charity you should get your greedy hands off it. If it's due to technicality then they should find a way to fix it given that MS is actually doing it perfectly

 

[Minions]

If this is indeed fueled by VAT then the title of this thread is causing a lot of issues.

Seems like standard operating procedure, unless Sony wanted to directly support the charity.

 

[Otakukidd]

Once again, we have two possible things happening here:

1. Sony had the option but decided they didn't want to waive their fees for this DLC purchase, in which case, that's actually gross.
   
2. PSN has technical limitations that don't allow Sony to directly waive the fees on this DLC purchase, in which case they don't care enough to fix it, and that's gross, or they didn't find a workaround like messaging "we'll donate our fees after the fact" which is also gross.

It's gross. And something I have to say way too much on this site: a multi-billion dollar international corporation does not need your defense.

Click to shrink...

By fees, you mean taxes that have to be paid no matter what or sonys cut from the transaction. From the info we have it seems like it's the taxes.

 

[8byte]

I used the word "vile," because it is.

Click to shrink...

Vile is deliciously apt, and I like it much better than throw away buzz words.

Once again, we have two possible things happening here:

1. Sony had the option but decided they didn't want to waive their fees for this DLC purchase, in which case, that's actually gross.
   
2. PSN has technical limitations that don't allow Sony to directly waive the fees on this DLC purchase, in which case they don't care enough to fix it, and that's gross, or they didn't find a workaround like messaging "we'll donate our fees after the fact" which is also gross.

It's gross. And something I have to say way too much on this site: a multi-billion dollar international corporation does not need your defense.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps re-read my post. It asserts two things:

1. Sony's behavior here is inexcusable and embarrassing.
2. "Gross" "Disgusting" and "Yikes" are over used buzzwords that replace true thoughtful expression and I'm just being a cynical asshole because I'm tired of seeing people devoid of their own personalities just adopting whatever is cool at the moment. And for the record? I'm 100% guilty of participating in this exact behavior, and I'm a disgusting hypocrite.

 

[Heshinsi]

I mean I believe his point is that are large chunk of the revenue and Sony is not just a charity so you can question why they need such a large surplus within that arm, but it may just be the way they balanced the books.

Click to shrink...

Their point is sunk when you look at the 2015 numbers right next to the numbers they want us to look at. Ok so the balance sheet shows it in the black for 2016, but it also was in the red for 2015. Is the expectation for them to be at 0 at the end of the year? Charities don't necessarily hand out all the donations every year. It's what allows them to dip below 0 like in 2015.

 

[data]

All charities take some kind of administration fees. Most of the time you have to spend money to make money. The American Red Cross is actually pretty efficient with its donations. BCRF, the charity this DLC supports, is even better in terms of efficiency and financial transparency.

It's really irresponsible to come into threads like this and make blanket claims about how charities are bad without doing the research first. Some charities are bad. The one in question isn't.

Click to shrink...

I could be wrong but wasn't there a time where the Red Cross recieved a bunch of money to help Hiati but ended up pocketing a lot of it. Was that administrative fees?

 

[Orb]

By fees, you mean taxes that have to be paid no matter what or sonys cut from the transaction. From the info we have it seems like it's the taxes.

Click to shrink...

Again, everything I'm talking about in this thread has nothing to do with taxes or VAT because I don't want to speak about something I'm not familiar with. I am specifically talking about the wording discrepancy on the US PSN store vs. the Xbox and Battle.net stores, which also seems to apply to at least Canada and Australia according to some other members.

Sony seems to be taking their normal platform cut on this purchase while Xbox and Battle.net are either waiving the cut directly or eating the cost and passing it along to the charity. That's what the wording suggests. If that's not the case, then Sony and/or Blizzard needs to clarify what's happening here, because it's certainly a shitty look for Sony.

 

[nib95]

I mean I believe his point is that are large chunk of the revenue and Sony is not just a charity so you can question why they need such a large surplus within that arm, but it may just be the way they balanced the books.

Click to shrink...

Because they might be planning for some large scale charitable ventures in the following year. That's how these things work. You don't necessarily know when the next massive disaster, humanitarian crisis, or major new project will rear itself, or how much debt or major costs you could incur, which is why a surplus can be invaluable in terms of freedom to invest in future endeavours.

I think Noroi is under the false impression that the Foundation can or will transfer that $1m to one of Sony's business holdings. That's not going to happen. That surplus will remain a part of that charities reserves, and can or will likely be invested or used by the charity in future.

 

[Principate]

Their point is sunk when you look at the 2015 numbers right next to the numbers they want us to look at. Ok so the balance sheet shows it in the black for 2016, but it also was in the red for 2015. Is the expectation for them to be at 0 at the end of the year? Charities don't necessarily hand out all the donations every year. It's what allows them to dip below 0 like in 2015.

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's how this normally works they had a rather large expenditure last year so it makes sense. If the were routinely largely in the black with a high income ratio maybe you'd ask some question.

 

[VirtuaRacer]

Sony seems to be taking their normal platform cut on this purchase

Click to shrink...

Why do you keep spreading misinformation?

 

[Orb]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a time where the Red Cross recieved a bunch of money to help Hiati but ended up pocketing a lot of it. Was that administrative fees?

Click to shrink...

I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but what you're likely remembering are stories about how all of the money did not go directly to Haiti, or at least it couldn't be traced directly to uses in Haiti. But a huge charity like the Red Cross is in some ways a black box. You put money in, it goes into a big pool, and gets used where it's needed. There's really not a way to directly track the $10 you gave via text message to a specific road or house in Haiti, for instance.

Calling this "pocketing the money" is a bit of a stretch.

Why do you keep spreading misinformation?

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure why you think it's misinformation. Or even a "lie" as your unedited post called it.

I'm making educated assumptions based on the information I have available. If it turns out I'm wrong I'll happily admit it.

 

[Elandyll]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Sony in Australia has a "Foundation" Branch for donations.
https://www.sonyfoundation.org/
It's ran by Sony Australia, which isn't quite Sony USA but this should still be sufficient for what we're doing in regards to an international company

It asks you to donate to their charity, but won't tell you any %'ages
I dug and I dug and I found their financial report
The devil is in the details

http://au.sonynms.s3.amazonaws.com/sonyfoundation/2015/sf-ar-15-16.pdf

In 2016, Sony Australia pocketed $959,757 from donations that should be going to charity.
Fuck.
Off.

I don't want to see anybody defending this shit right now.

If that's not enough for you, here's the fucking audit

Signed and signatured by an australian auditor.

It's official: Sony wants to profit from cancer research and charity.

Click to shrink...

You need to read better, unless you are intentionally trying to misrepresent things.

In 2015 (and apparently previous years) they had donated -more- than their income as a Foundation. Which is how you end up closing, unable to account for your costs as an entity.
The report from the audit even signifies that with the modified profile the Foundation should be able to pay its debts...

 

[stupei]

By fees, you mean taxes that have to be paid no matter what or sonys cut from the transaction. From the info we have it seems like it's the taxes.

Click to shrink...

What you're basically framing this as Sony having the option to pay these fees themselves and, essentially responding to, "Hey, would you also like to donate to breast cancer research?" with "not really."

And that's not vile? For a massive, successful, wealthy corporation to nope out of giving up a fraction of a fraction of their overall profit to benefit cancer research because it won't be under their own name so it doesn't benefit them enough in terms of branding? If anything, their past charitable causes makes them look worse, if they're very willing to give under their own name but not so concerned when it won't benefit their brand.

 

[Gestault]

Why do you keep spreading misinformation?

Click to shrink...

My understanding is that the VAT theory doesn't explain what's happening, because the language that people are concerned about is also on the US and AU PSN listings. Do you have a link or quick explanation for what we know about the standard cut vs some outside requirement to take the portion we're seeing?

 

[Geoff]

I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but what you're likely remembering are stories about how all of the money did not go directly to Haiti, or at least it couldn't be traced directly to uses in Haiti. But a huge charity like the Red Cross is in some ways a black box. You put money in, it goes into a big pool, and gets used where it's needed. There's really not a way to directly track the $10 you gave via text message to a specific road or house in Haiti, for instance.

Calling this "pocketing the money" is a bit of a stretch.

Click to shrink...

Also charities have employees and some of them are very highly paid. They also have rent, overheads like everyone else. They are not simply a conduit though which aid passes undiminished en route to the crisis zone.

 

[NewDust]

Again, everything I'm talking about in this thread has nothing to do with taxes or VAT because I don't want to speak about something I'm not familiar with. I am specifically talking about the wording discrepancy on the US PSN store vs. the Xbox and Battle.net stores, which also seems to apply to at least Canada and Australia according to some other members.

Sony seems to be taking their normal platform cut on this purchase while Xbox and Battle.net are either waiving the cut directly or eating the cost and passing it along to the charity. That's what the wording suggests. If that's not the case, then Sony and/or Blizzard needs to clarify what's happening here, because it's certainly a shitty look for Sony.

Click to shrink...

Thing is, if you are looking at SCEE, it pretty much confirms it just taxes and process fees, and not Sony pocketing the money. Now that doesn't mean SCEA couldn't be doing something dubious, and either Sony or Blizzard should really address the situation, suggesting Sony is taking a 20+% cut, as the title implies, seems really far from the thruth.

 

[Orb]

Thing is, if you are looking at SCEE, it pretty much confirms it just taxes and process fees, and not Sony pocketing the money. Now that doesn't mean SCEA couldn't be doing something dubious, and either Sony or Blizzard should really address the situation, suggesting Sony is taking a 20+% cut, as the title implies, seems really far from the thruth.

Click to shrink...

And I never said Sony was pocketing the money. Again, I don't think Sony is being greedy here and attempting to get rich off of the tiny bits of overhead from charity donations. I just think they don't care enough to waive the fee or change their platform in a way that they are able to. And maybe they thought no one would notice.

Let's say PSN is not technically set up in a way that allows them to automatically waive the fee on a purchase for charity purposes. That's fine. All they have to do in this case is just say "At the end of this campaign, we'll also donate an amount of money equal to the fees collected on these PSN purchases (the amount of money that didn't go directly to Blizzard)"

Problem solved, no drama necessary.

 

[Heshinsi]

You need to read better, unless you are intentionally trying to misrepresent things.

In 2015 (and apparently previous years) they had donated -more- than their income as a Foundation. Which is how you end up closing, unable to account for your costs as an entity.
The report from the audit even signifies that with the modified profile the Foundation should be able to pay its debts...

Click to shrink...

This was like Bush era levels of ineptitude in trying to find dirt that wasn't there lol.

 

[Otakukidd]

My understanding is that the VAT theory doesn't explain what's happening, because the language that people are concerned about is also on the US and AU PSN listings. Do you have a link or quick explanation for what we know about the standard cut vs some outside requirement to take the portion we're seeing?

Click to shrink...

The US doesn't show a discrepancy. It just says 100% of the money it receives from PlayStation will be given to charity. We have no idea if they are taking a cut.

 

[Orb]

The US doesn't show a discrepancy. It just says 100% of the money it receives from PlayStation will be given to charity. We have no idea if they are taking a cut.

Click to shrink...

There must be a reason that these are different, and if it's not because PSN is taking a cut, then what is the reason?

From May 8-May 21, Blizzard Entertainment will donate 100% of the proceeds that it receives from Sony PlayStation for your purchase of the Pink Mercy skin to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Blizzard Entertainment will disclose the total amount of its donation following the end of the campaign.

Click to shrink...

From May 8-May 21, Blizzard Entertainment will donate 100% of the purchase price for your purchase of the Pink Mercy skin on Xbox to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Blizzard Entertainment will disclose the total amount of its donation following the end of the campaign.

Click to shrink...

 

[Riderz1337]

This thread is sad for two reasons.

1) for the way Sony has handled the situation.

2) the usual suspects who never miss a beat/moment to shit on Sony. Why does everything have to end up being a console war for some of you guys?

 

[Monkey Gland Sauce]

My understanding is that the VAT theory doesn't explain what's happening, because the language that people are concerned about is also on the US and AU PSN listings. Do you have a link or quick explanation for what we know about the standard cut vs some outside requirement to take the portion we're seeing?

Click to shrink...

There is also tax on PSN purchases in some states.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/so...harged-tax-for-online-purchases-on-ps4.40547/

 

[data]

There is also tax on PSN purchases in some states.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/so...harged-tax-for-online-purchases-on-ps4.40547/

Click to shrink...

I could be wrong, but I don't think any state has > 20% sales tax.

 

[Deader2818]

I'm guessing US psn is accounting tax.

 

[NewDust]

And I never said Sony was pocketing the money. Again, I don't think Sony is being greedy here and attempting to get rich off of the tiny bits of overhead from charity donations. I just think they don't care enough to waive the fee or change their platform in a way that they are able to. And maybe they thought no one would notice.

Let's say PSN is not technically set up in a way that allows them to automatically waive the fee on a purchase for charity purposes. That's fine. All they have to do in this case is just say "At the end of this campaign, we'll also donate an amount of money equal to the fees collected on these PSN purchases (the amount of money that didn't go directly to Blizzard)"

Problem solved, no drama necessary.

Click to shrink...

Ah, well misinterpreted your post on the 'platform fees', thinking you suggested Sony was taking their cut as on regular sales.

On the matter wether Sony should eat/donate the cost of the charity event, we are simply looking at it from a different angle. I commend MS for doing so (if that is what they are doing), and while it would be nice of Sony to do the same, I don't think it is 'shitty' that they don't.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any state has > 20% sales tax.

Click to shrink...

We don't know the 'cut' SCEA is taking. The 22% in the title aplies to the UK (and similarly other SCEE) storefront(s) only.

 

[The Archon]

$on¥ at it again?
/s

I hope Sony says it's a mistake and that they will redistribute the funds back to the charity.

 

[Monkey Gland Sauce]

I could be wrong, but I don't think any state has > 20% sales tax.

Click to shrink...

US page doesn't say anything about how much it will donate specifically. This makes sense if it is tax, due to differences in state taxes.

 

[Hope]

Everyone knows what VAT is. Thing is, it is extraordinarily uncommon that VAT is charged on charity donations. Now, whether purhasing a costume where 100% of the proceeds go to charity legally counts as a charity donation or not I don't know. It depends on the country's jurisdiction.

Click to shrink...

It counts as Charity if you get nothing in return so yea vat is allright.

 

[LABARONX]

On the matter wether Sony should eat/donate the cost of the charity event, we are simply looking at it from a different angle. I commend MS for doing so (if that is what they are doing), and while it would be nice of Sony to do the same, I don't think it is 'shitty' that they don't.

Click to shrink...

Yep I don't think anything nefarious is going on here, just sony being a little lazy

 

[Orb]

Interestingly, if you compare the store listings on US PSN store and US Xbox store for the Call of Duty Endowment charity item, the wording is the same:

100% of proceeds received by Activision for this pack will be donated to the Call of Duty Endowment and go directly to funding non-profits that place veterans into high quality jobs.

Click to shrink...

 

[Moebius]

What a disgusting company. They'd rather pocket cash than help people who are dying? What a great leader Sony has.

 

[Arthands]

Disgusting of Sony to be doing this.

 

[Kenjovani]

All charities take some kind of administration fees. Most of the time you have to spend money to make money. The American Red Cross is actually pretty efficient with its donations. BCRF, the charity this DLC supports, is even better in terms of efficiency and financial transparency.

It's really irresponsible to come into threads like this and make blanket claims about how charities are bad without doing the research first. Some charities are bad. The one in question isn't.

Click to shrink...

I put a specific charity, also mentioned "many" charities doing it which isnt a blanket statement but true (saying "all" would have been a blanket). Fyi read up about Red Cross and Haiti.

Its great if you have your views but dont be presumptous in saying "do your research" because i have. I noticed many on this site are know it alls. My response to the poster was not specific to the Sony issue but the comment he made and still stand by my response. As consumers, buyers and/or donaters we should always be aware of different scenarios and do research, anything else is "irresponsible".

Btw what i mentioned with Cancer fund and Red Cross was not! Administrative fees :)

 

[MysticGon]

So Microsoft can sell items tax free but Sony has to factor in tax on the final product? Why? Isn't charitable giving tax exempt but if by some way it is not Europe doesn't really tolerate people going around paying taxes?

Either that or Microsoft is being cool and eating all the tax itself. That'd be great PR lol.

 

[Gestault]

As far as I know for every state in the US, you don't charge sales tax on donations (even when you recieve an item in exchange) where all proceeds go to the benefit of the non-profit/charity. I'm not familiar with the AU system, though.

Specifically for an example: If you give the $50 donation tier to your NPR affiliate to recieve the streaming service subscription and physical mug, that donation isn't taxed.

 

[Oynox]

Didn't this occur before in some other instance too?

 

[Orb]

I put a specific charity, also mentioned "many" charities doing it which isnt a blanket statement but true (saying "all" would gave been a blanket). Fyi read up about Red Cross and Haiti.

Its great if you have your views but dont be presumptous in saying "do your research" because i have. I noticed many on this site are know it alls. My response to poster was not specific to the Sony issue but the comment he made and still stand by ny response. As consumers, buyers and/or donaters we should always be aware of different scenarios and do research, anything else is "irresponsible".

Btw what i mentioned with Cancer fund and Red Cross was not! Administrative fees :)

Click to shrink...

I've already addressed all of this. If you have information that suggests either the Red Cross or the Breast Cancer Research Foundation are doing something illicit, you should provide it directly. Because both have favorable scores from Charity Navigator and other watchdog organizations.

 

[Dr.Ifto]

What a disgusting company. They'd rather pocket cash than help people who are dying? What a great leader Sony has.

Click to shrink...

And how are you not a disgusting person for blindly bashing someone before they came out with a response.

 

[Harkins1721]

Kewl beans.

 

[TheModestGun]

Some of you REALLY need to calm down. The amount of hyperbole happening in here is absurd. I understand putting Sony under scrutiny, but the fact some of you are so ready to hop into hate mob really says something about your mentality.

Gather information, wait for a response from Sony and keep pestering them about it, until they give an answer. If you are too lazy to do any real research and actually understand what's going on under the surface here you really have no ground to stand on.

 

[Orb]

Some of you REALLY need to calm down. The amount of hyperbole happening in here is absurd. I understand putting Sony under scrutiny, but the fact some of you are so ready to hop into hate mob really says something about your mentality.

Gather information, wait for a response from Sony and keep pestering them about it, until they give an answer. If you are too lazy to do any real research and actually understand what's going on under the surface here you really have no ground to stand on.

Click to shrink...

What "response" is there to wait for? They have no incentive to respond to any of this based on a 10-page forum thread on a relatively small gaming forum on the internet.

Someone in the press needs to be asking them about this, but we have no idea if or when that will happen, so we don't know whether to expect a response or not. It is not in Sony's best interest to scour ResetEra for negative information about them and make a statement about every single thing.

 

[Kenjovani]

I've already addressed all of this. If you have information that suggests either the Red Cross or the Breast Cancer Research Foundation are doing something illicit, you should provide it directly. Because both have favorable scores from Charity Navigator and other watchdog organizations.

Click to shrink...

Ill let you do the research. It wasnt that deep. Again its public knowledge and lack of transparency when questioned about certain issues on their part. I was responding to poster and irregardless of those two institutions againnnnnn the point was just dont give money without knowing where it goes because all charities dont function the same.

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 30365]

Just to people mentioning AU PSN, all prices in Australia must include taxes, which is 10%.

 

[Japanmanx3]

This was like Bush era levels of ineptitude in trying to find dirt that wasn't there lol.

Click to shrink...

 

[Moebius]

And how are you not a disgusting person for blindly bashing someone before they came out with a response.

Click to shrink...

What's their response? "Whoops, we got caught." ?

 

[TheYanger]

And how are you not a disgusting person for blindly bashing someone before they came out with a response.

Click to shrink...

Because it's not blind?

 

[Deleted member 9486]

I'm not going to curb my visits because I love gaming and I get a lot information I don't get elsewhere but I've been very picky with the threads I visit.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm just going to browse for news once or twice a day and otherwise make more use of the watch threads feature and bookmark my list of active threads (game OTs) etc so I can enjoy those and minimize all the negativity.

 

[Cybit]

Kudos to MS for what looks like eating the VAT - MS is known for being pretty generous with charities locally and glad to see that extends out.

 

[Orb]

Ill let you do the research. It wasnt that deep. Again its public knowledge and lack of transparency when questioned about certain issues on their part.

Click to shrink...

This is all extremely vague. You're the one making the claim about "something going on" with the Red Cross and Haiti, so I would appreciate it if you would provide the information to back that claim up, thanks.