Well I guess someone had to update his art for the free people if he wasn't going to.

I un-watched him since all he does is little sketches are constant advertisements for his webcomic (read it, gets repetitive fairly quickly, and a tentacle fake out? Creative....) Too many artists are ditching their free audience.

Not everyone who wants to pay the artist wants to be tied down to a monthly fee, especially if said artist spams art. Imaging the $50+ backers...

>>160298
May I ask: Who?

>>160309

I'm guessing this person meant Skidd, and given his FA activity... I can see why.

>>160298
>Too many artists are ditching their free audience.

I too cannot imagine why people would prioritise people who pay them.

>>160332

> Why not please both?

Prioritizing is one thing, near-deserting the other is a different matter (especially when said other group makes up the majority of your audience.)

Not saying that you should upload all of your exclusive, but at least remember that those who would rather see your art for free still exist.

I've seen this happen with a lot of popular artists with pay sites, and that's why I was concerned when Patreon came to be. Shame my gut feeling came true...

>>160344
>Prioritizing is one thing, near-deserting the other is a different matter

How are you able to quantify the difference? (Without a vague answer like "I know it when I see it" that allows you to reject any counter-proposal as "not good enough")

>>160277
>Patreon

saw doxy's details for his patreon though they are interesting they are way over-priced! btw why is it a week deal and not a month deal?

>>160433

Wait, an artist can charge weekly instead of monthly? I thought it was only monthly.

Well that puts greed to a new level.

>>160451
>Wait, an artist can charge weekly instead of monthly? I thought it was only monthly.

Well that puts greed to a new level.

yep. as i said the $9/wk tier is tempting but u figure that up it's $36 a month. just seems a lil too high for me.

I really hate subscription models.

I don't mind paying an artist for content, I don't even mind funding a project so it can get made. But when you do it like "pay me this much money each week/month," it gets way too convoluted and problematic. The patrons assume all the risk in terms of quality and frequency.

And the thing about Patreon is, a lot of these artists are asking for a lot of money for not as much content. Some of them are going to get it because they're popular or have rich fans, but a lot of them aren't going to get anywhere close. The reason for this is, a lot of them are thinking they can turn their personal art into a career.

And for 99% of them, they just can't. The artists who think they can get minimum wage (and then some,) for doing their own art, the artists who think they can make a living wage drawing porn based on their own ideas. It's just not viable. I mean, there are only a handful of webcomics that are big enough to get their creators that kind of money, and a lot of them are still taking commissions and doing side projects.

Don't get me wrong, artists deserve to get paid, I'm not saying art isn't a real job at all. But trying to turn your personal projects into your full time living wage job doesn't work unless you have scores of loving fans like NinjaKitty (who I think is actually kind of mediocre,) or Doxy or someone similar. Realistically, unless you have dozens of people wanting to pay hundreds of dollars for commissions, you don't have enough interest. And it'll just alienate the fans you do have.

Really, I'd rather just pay an artist for a commission and get exactly what I want while they get their payment. That's how artists have been paid for centuries and trying to turn it into a salary career where you get paid for doing whatever you want won't cut it for either side.

>>160479
The flaw in your argument is that Patreon allows the patron to pay whatever they want and cancel at any time.

So you could pay $1 then cancel after that payment.

Or pay whatever amount to access the content you want, then immediately cancel.

In that way you CAN use it as a flat payment system and not a subscription.

>>160479
Also, "It's just not viable." is an opinion.

Patreon = creators can get more money for what they do.
Creators getting more money for what they do = More content.
More content = Good.

Even if a mediocre artist only get $1-$20 a month/week from Patreon, that is more money than they had.

You are advocating that creators should get LESS money for more work. There is no "Bank of Supporters" which is going to run out. There is essentially infinite money they can draw from, limited only by those who wish to support them.

You have no moral standpoint at all and the only way your argument makes sense is if you are anti-capitalism and want artists to have less money so the power stays in the hands of commissioners.

>>160494
I'm not saying artists shouldn't use Patreon, I'm saying that they shouldn't use it with the hope of making serious money or creating a career replacement. And that seems to be the ultimate aim of the site, since you're paying for art on a timed basis. A lot of the artists have said this themselves in their tier descriptions ala "if I reach this goal, I can actually do this for a living."

I'm just being realistic. Most of them aren't going to have a ton of supporters or make more than tens of dollars a month. A lot of the ones I've seen have had less than 5 patrons. I'm saying I think it's better to focus on commissions and get those funds and make both sides happy, rather than take a risk with focusing on personal projects and end up making chump change.

It's a calculated risk, and it all depends on how many people want to support them and how much they're charging (many are charging way too much by the way, that's the real problem.)

But it's just my opinion. I thought that was pretty obvious. In a perfect world we could all afford to support our favorite artists, but when you're effectively giving every individual artist their own subscription model and many choose to charge multi-artist subscription site prices, then I don't see it working out well.

But hey, nobody's stopping anybody from trying either. That's just my two cents on subscription vs. commission. If they have a dollar more than they would have at the end of the month, more power to them. I just hope there aren't a lot of delusions of grandeur is all.

>>160493
>So you could pay $1 then cancel after that payment.

Or pay whatever amount to access the content you want, then immediately cancel

but wouldn't this result in a possible temporary or permanent ban of the site?

I mean i would think they would have precautionary measures for this sort of thing....

>>160500
It does seem silly to do that, since the point of the site is to be a subscriber and most of the rewards are given specifically to people who stick around.

Basically it's a Kickstarter for artists, and some people do it well, others are way too lofty, and it all really depends on how much quality they're about to churn out in a timely manner.

>>160498

>I'm saying that they shouldn't use it with the hope of making serious money or creating a career replacement.

Why don't you say what you really mean, oh wait you already did:

>>160479
>Really, I'd rather just pay an artist for a commission and get exactly what I want while they get their payment.
>get exactly what I want
>get exactly what I want
>get exactly what I want
>get exactly what I want

Which is actually:

>remember that those who would rather see your art for free still exist.

Which is really

>I'm a cheap fuck who just wants everything for free.

>>160527
I was waiting for someone to take a single line out of context and spin it into their own negative and baseless assumptions. Happens every time.

You'll see that I said several times that artists deserve payment and that I have no problem paying them. I've done so many, many times in the past. Artists deserve to be paid for their work, their effort, their time, their talent. Quote me on that.

I'm simply saying I prefer paying a commission fee over a subscription fee, because I do get exactly what I want, but THEY get exactly what THEY want too, which is money. It's win-win. In the past with subscription sites, you end up paying a chunk of change every month, sometimes every week or two, with no guarantee of frequency or quality of the work you get in exchange. And with Patreon, you boil that down to the individual level, creating an even greater risk. Plus, it's much more pressure on the artist themselves to produce.

No, commissioners shouldn't have ALL the power, and yes, artists should be allowed to do their personal projects and not focus on commissions exclusively. In a perfect world, artists could be paid to explore their own interests, which is basically what Patreon is, giving them most if not all the power. But we don't live in a perfect world and I simply can't afford to pay every artist I like $25 every month to keep producing their art as they see fit. Not even $5. And I would much rather just pay them a commission, get a cool pic I like, and put a lot more money in their pocket than that measly dollar. Sure, if even 50 people all pay a dollar, then it adds up, but my point is that's not going to happen for most artists. They'll be lucky to get $20 a month. Some even $10 a month. Some $5. Sooner or later its not going to be worth it for many of them. Like I said, not everybody can be NinjaKitty and have people clamoring to pay her $1,400 a month just because.

All that being said, I should have been more clear that I don't hate the idea of Patreon as a donation button. A dollar more a month is still a dollar more after all. I just hate the idea of artists eventually using Patreon as their exclusive hub for art, embracing it as their art career, and hoping to get paid a salary for doing their own free exploration. Which, if you've actually read some of these pages, its clear some do think that.

tl;dr Patreon as a donation button of sorts is good. Using it as a personal, individual subscription site is bad.

Also, I'm not the one who said

>remember that those who would rather see your art for free still exist.

While I agree that an artist trying to be popular should try and find a healthy balance between the two, it's also not viable for a starving artist to keep churning out quality stuff for free when they could be spending that time and effort on a monetary exchange i.e. commissions.

It all boils down to supply and demand. Most artists might be popular enough to have a demand for commissions but not necessarily for a monthly wage. Gotta be realistic about it or you'll end up wasting time, alienating people, and no better off.

>>160543
>I was waiting for someone to take a single line out of context and spin it into their own negative and baseless assumptions. Happens every time.

this is jeezits we're talking about.

>>160543
>But we don't live in a perfect world and I simply can't afford to pay every artist I like $25 every month to keep producing their art as they see fit. Not even $5.

Do you earn minimum wage or something? (Or use your parents' credit cards)

Back to posting the oldies. Capping my pledges to avoid overcharging for spams...

Also, some will be shrunk down a bit due to the file size cap.

So...whose Patreons are being covered right now?

I recognize Skidd's work but that's it.

>>162085
The only other artist whose Patreon's being covered here so far is Sif.

Okay, I keep hearing about this Patreon thing everywhere.... what is this? Some kickstarter?

>>162095
Patreon is similar to Kickstarter. However, the name of the game is to donate monthly, rather than for one single time for a single goal.

If the donation amount reaches a certain point, the artist will have special incentives planned. Also, you get rewarded based on how much you give too.

Another fine difference is that you can stop donating any time, which will actually lower the total donations.

>>162095
Patreon is similar to Kickstarter. However, the name of the game is to donate monthly, rather than for one single time for a single goal.

If the donation amount reaches a certain point, the artist will have special incentives planned. Also, you get rewarded based on how much you give too.

Another fine difference is that you can stop donating any time, which will actually lower the total donations.

Thanks. Well, I never donate to artists (myself being one, if I want something drawn I just draw it) but if this has games or movies "kickstarted" as well, I will be interested. :)

https://boards.plus4chan.org/pco/t162182.html#p162182

I'll be slowly migrating the Patreon stuff there.

Well it seems as though the Patreon leaks are getting removed here and on the other board. If anyone knows of a viable alternative site, that would be appreciated.

>>162323
They aren't getting removed, there was a server migration error which resulted in the images not showing up but they still registered as being there so you wouldn't be able to reupload them.

All the information about it is here https://boards.plus4chan.org/baw/t391791.html

>>162324

New thread is now here: https://boards.plus4chan.org/pco/t162997.html#p162997