/fur/ - Furry★

Perhaps you should consider paying for your purchase instead of engaging in digital shoplifting.

>>72895 (OP)

>>72897

>defending Jewtreon ever

>"paying for your purchase"

>"digital shoplifting"

No matter how badly artists want to sell it out as a store, Patreon is a tip jar. Period. They want to sell shit, they can go back to publicly available commission slots or YCH's instead of treating a tip jar service like another Sexyfur site.

>>72895 (OP)

I noticed Cuisine is doing this, too. The admin has some kind of flagging system up for placeholder posts, but I don't think it's doing its job.

>>73261

paycuck go and stay go

>>74361

If you get his art for free anyway (via yiff.party), how will you deal with the guilt of knowing that you're stealing from someone you respect?

>>74380

I don't mind it when artists do it, but consumers aren't stupid when they notice a difference.

>>73261

>Patreon may have originally only been for donations but now it's also used as a way to sell the furry equivalent of "premium content"/DLC's.

And, it's only because they didn't have the grape fruits to crack down on the very first paywalls that popped up that the status quo now rules it. Patreon could have just as easily resisted this trend as they had embraced it. While Patreon would not be the brand name it is now and a lot of butthurt artists would subtly insult it for not letting them do whatever they want on it, the company would still be doing just fine. Plenty of people would love to give money to help projects get done in exchange for sketches, inks and other behind-the-scenes stuff that we never get to see.

Patreon's purposes changed because they let the paywallers change those purposes for them. If Patreon had put their foot down at the very beginning, things would be very different.

>>74394

The wording is dumb but it makes sense. Art is work, and artists should be free to make a living with it like any other skill, but I don't think artists are entitled to good living conditions simply because they're artists. Jasonafex doesn't need 40 acres and a mule because "Well, you're making the world a more beautiful place," but he should be free to charge and get paid for his work in a fair and open marketplace.

>>74415

But they didn't and they support artists using the platform like that. Now deal with reality and stop getting butthurt just because things aren't like your non existent fantasy world.

If you don't like seeing artists selling their artpacks like that, just ignore them, you have shit-tons of free porn on e621 and an useful blacklist tool there.

His art hasn't changed in 10 years. Why would you want "new" content?

>>74367

>guilt of downloading a copy of something the artist can produce infinitely and at literally 0 cost

you're a stupid buycuck arent you.

i dont respect artists who pull this shit. if your art is good, people will donate to you out of their free will and because they want to see you make more, not out of you holding art hostage, thats how the free market works. Art is supposed to be spread and reach the widest possible audience, its not supposed to require Premium™ Membership™ so that only a few snobs with too much disposable income can see it.

>>74949

While that may be true, scarcity is fairly easy to use on art, much like a lot of things. If there's a slim chance of getting an image set you like, you're more likely to empty your wallet for it than wait who knows how many months to get the same exact set from somewhere else for cheaper or nothing. It's way more economical to put your art out there for others to judge worthy of donating to, but artists nowadays aren't out for making the most money. They're out to make the most money in the shortest amount of time. And, the best way to do that is paywall it and force people to choose whether they really want to see it or not. As many artists as there are on Patreon now, its become a sick game of who's going to get money from the poor conflicted schmuck first.

This whole problem stems from the fact that artists just don't trust their fans enough to donate for nothing in return except finished artwork which, in the end, is all that we want. So, they have to come up with the "exclusivity" excuse and hide their finished work on top of a mound of useless junk to entice their fans to give them money.

>>74923

Depends. One man ends up with no grapes, the other, potentially, can negotiate down the price to something reasonable.

>>74974

you don't need to explain how it works to me fam, i know it. That doesn't change the fact its a shitty practice that makes me even less willing to give them my money.