As an NBC Renderer, it is very difficult to be compensated for my work.
The only way I can get my robux payment is through group payouts. I think a lot of us developers (and not neccesarily renderers, but any NBC who does any payable work for others) face this issue, where the person paying for the product doesn’t have a group.
I think that Roblox can do something about this by:
1. Giving NBC members the ability to make one group.
2. Establishing a two-way method for payment in groups (not shirts or t-shirts), where a person can “buy” a product (a render, script, map, etc) and get 100%. (Optional)
I think this will help developers a lot in working for each other. Currently it is too much of a hassle getting people to do something as simple as pay the other for a product.
I want this too
I don’t want this
Other opinion (Comment under)
0voters
Edit: If all NBC users are allowed to have one group, then payments won’t be a problem and two-way group payments won’t be needed.
Edit 2: Ok. Lets do this. If User So-and-so have robux: then they have the ability to make one group. If not, then they do not have the abiltity. This way no “non-developers” use this to make big-name groups that are not-focusing on the payment.
Allowing 1 group to NBC users would be useful to them. I don’t really see any major down side to this? Not all people can afford BC irl, nor have the ability to work for a development group.
I think if someone got the robux to pay a developers he got enough robux to buy a group.
Also if people can “buy” products and receive 100% I do not see why we should have taxes in roblox and buy Builder Club would become useless. Personally when I take the member it is to remove the 90% tax. Also Builder Club is not that expensive. 6 dollars is not huge and it helps to give money to ROBLOX.
Everyone has different financial situations. Maybe I’m more sympathatic about stuff like this because I’ve been homeless before, and have had nothing, I’ve also lived with my grandma (during the time I was homeless, my grandma took me in while my mom found a place to live), and she’s extremely strict on money, and even limits internet usage to “save money/power”.
So to some people, $6 is a lot. And you won’t make that money back instantly. And you need to spend $20 to earn it back.
Yeah, so much money would be lost by allowing a NBC user to buyone group.
We aren’t talking about removing taxes, and giving groups out for free. And on top of this, this would essentially be giving NBC users a trial on groups, so that they could get a feel for the features of one. and if they decide to take the bite and buy BC to further their career, then so be it.
Although I am not in a severe situation like you (Im very sorry for the event your’e mentioning), money is not disposable on internet stuff in my family.
This was a few years ago, I’m in a much better situation now. But I do know what it’s like to not be able to afford anything. Even after not being homeless, there was a point in time where my mom and her boyfriend didn’t have a job. So we were living in his/his moms house for free during that period, we survived off of death benefits from my father.
Overall, there’s legitimate reasons for people to not be able to afford BC, or have the ability to buy it. @BuildIntoGames
This would not be a loss for roblox, as now people would be able to experience groups. Of course, if there is a way to add a whole new method for developer payment, than by all means I would support it. But of course this is not the case, and I am trying to suggest a stretch to groups to solve our current issue.
Groups get taxed as BC users (30%), how much should NBC groups be charged? If you keep the NBC tax for these groups it doesnt quite solve the problem you are presenting, but if you make it so these new groups get charged as if they were bought with BC then you are essentially removing a huge tax from the market and it’ll have repercussions on the value of robux.
I know where you are coming from, but I feel like this’ll be used mostly as a way to avoid paying roblox and get the most out of robux transactions by avoiding fees. In the end it might hurt us all.
We are barely changing what is currently happening, (Using group payouts to pay for work done for someone). What Im trying to do is make sure that no one comes up to me and says that he/she can’t pay because they are NBC. That means that they must have robux that they either payed for or devv’ed for.
Ok. Lets do this. If User So-and-so have robux: then they have the ability to make one group. If not, then they do not have the abiltity. This way no “non-developers” use this to make big-name groups that are not-focusing on the payment. @cinderdeer@BuildIntoGames@Neutre You guys all agree?
For many people, it’s not about the amount of money, it’s paying it. Many parents are reluctant to give their credit card to a company they may not have heard of before, and they may not be comfortable with driving their child to Toys-R-Usrip to buy a ROBLOX Card. It took me over a year just to convince my parents to do that.
Doesn’t really answer my doubts, and how would these group owners transfer money from their account to the group funds to make future payments?
If they got the money through developing for someone else, they most likely got payed through group funds and it’s not possible to make payments to other groups (Maybe add this to the requests?) so the robux would still be in their account and not in the group.
If they got the funds through their own game, how much tax should be applied to the sales of these groups?
I feel like there are a lot of missing features for this to be considered. (Player to group and group to group payouts for example, which deserve discussion of their own)
Roblox should just set NBC tax to 30%. The number of robux being sunk by it is probably totally insignificant, lots of people are already working around it anyway, and I doubt tax is the only thing driving BC sales. Even if it is, it’s rather anti consumer to be handicapping people who don’t buy the membership.
The 90% tax over NBC earnings is outrageously high in my opinion. Taking in account that, in real life, you have to pay 23% (tax is different from country to country) over the value of a product (except on basic needs where that tax goes down to 13%):
With a 90% tax over NBC earnings, that means if the user wants to earn 100R$, he has to price it as 1000R$. This means the end consumer will end up to pay a tax of 900% over the value of the product. This is, the product value plus nine times of it, or 10x the value.
Basically people that want to become developers at ROBLOX will have NBC as a trial/demo feature set. ‘If you want to be actively developing you should get our memberships or you’ll have to stick with tiny revenue compared to what your players spend.’ Ok, I don’t think having tax differences between NBC and BC is bad on it’s own, the bad thing is the difference itself. The numbers speak for themselves.
As stated before, while 6 dollars is no big deal, not everyone (especially minors) have acess to electronic payment methods. And for those, there are the parents (like mine) who still don’t get the usefulness of these kinds of memberships.
Even with the 30% tax applied to BC earnings, that means if the same user wants to earn 100R$, they have to price it as 143R$. The end consumer will pay a tax of 43% over the value of the product. Given that the in-game economy is not an huge universe, I won’t consider this an issue (after all ROBUX needs to retain it’s value), but it’s still higher than taxes in real life shopping.
I do not believe that allowing NBC users to own one group will entirely solve the problem. Remember that creating a group will require a 100R$ fee, meaning that those will still have to pay at least a dollar to the company (or stick with the 10% fee until they get 100R$, also meaning they will drop 900R$ to nowhere or be lucky enough to find a customer who owns a group) to be able to get to this point of creating a group.
A two-way method for payment with 0% tax can be easily worked around to become a way to wash money. And having moderators looking at all requests just like devEx requests would take a lot of human resources.
While it’s probable that BC is not only bought for the lower tax (not every BC member is a developer), having NBC tax = BC tax would be less of an incentive for upcoming developers to get BC (except the case of OBC where you can devEx). Yes, NBC tax should be reduced, but not at the BC level.
I don’t think NBC users should be able to make groups because there would be way too many groups.
Also, I think a better feature would be a fund transfer option for group distribution and donation for users.
Roblox would only take a smaller fee than normal or none at all.
