Frogboy Frogboy

Is art worthless on the Internet?

Is art worthless on the Internet?

People will pay for some crazy things but cry foul over paying for artwork

Today Stardock Design released its first "Master" Dream to the Dream (animated wallpaper) gallery. It's the one Microsoft showed off at some of its events.  As some know, Microsoft worked with Stardock to make some of the animated wallpapers for use with Windows DreamScene. Windows DreamScene (the software) is a feature for Windows Vista Ultimate users.  Most of the content we created for Microsoft hasn't been released yet (it will be available from Microsoft).  In the process of creating the animated wallpapers for Microsoft, we made a bunch of extra ones for WinCustomize.com which had nothing to do with our work with Microsoft.

So far, Stardock Design has released 6 free .Dreams and 1 premium .Dream.  On top of that, Stardock has released DeskScapes as freeware and DreamMaker as freeware.  And of course, we host the Dreams here on WiniCustomize which, on their own, used over 2 TERRABYTES of bandwidth.  So from our vantage point, Stardock's been "the good guy". Providing lots of free stuff, lots of free software and providing a free site to get it on. 

But Stardock's also a business. The costs of producing all this has to be made up somewhere or else we wouldn't be able to keep doing it.  But some people seem to be very vocal in their outrage that artists won't work for free. They'll happily pay Microsoft $400 for Windows Vista Ultimate but cry bloody murder about paying third party artists $4.95 for content.  My Xbox 360 cost quite a bit too but amazingly, the games aren't free. Those "greedy" game companies! 

Here's some of the comments on Blissful Sunset:

"It's absolutely ridiculous that they're charging for this-- it's just wrong. But for people who own Vista Ultimate, just wait, I guarantee you that this will come w/ the final Dreamscene when it's released. "

According to this user, it's morally wrong for artists to be paid for their work.  He's quite incorrect about Blissful Sunset coming with the final.

Another user wrote this:

"The implication (with MS showing it at official events) is that this development is work that was part of your contract with MS and therefore has already been subsidized and is in fact being paid for by all of us by our shelling out extra bucks for Ultimate edition."

This falls under the "no good deed goes unpunished" category.  Microsoft was looking for high quality content to show off during their demos but didn't want to give away some of the stuff that will be coming in the final release so they asked us if they could show the extra content we made. We agreed to let them. After all, it's pretty cool to see your work up on stage. But this person (and others) have tried to argue that we should simply give away all the animated wallpaper for free that we've made because we made the ones that come with it.  How does that make sense?

Over at Valve's Steam website, a user posted "Stardock sux" and writes:

"This is just unbelievable. Stardock is now charging us for what is supposed to be a FREE Vista Ultimate Extra"

This line of thinking is equivalent to saying that someone who bought say Half-Life 2 via Steam is somehow entitled to HL2: Episode 0 and HL2: Episode 1 and so forth. After all, they paid for Half-Life, why should they have to pay for additional content?  In fact, that's been one of the trends in the "outrage" group. Sure, there's 18 dreams that are free. But they shouldn't have to pay for anything because they bought Windows Vista Ultimate. I just totally can't grasp that mindset.  In what universe does someone buying a version of Windows entitle them to free software and content created by third parties?  Heck, my cell phone tries to get me to pay money for additional ring tones!

So here's what's going to happen -- one of these 2 things are going to occur:

Possibility #1: Users decide animated wallpaper is worthless.  In that case, Stardock Design won't be creating any more for consumers. Remember, Stardock Design currently has a 6 to 1 ratio in free to premium content.  At that point, consumers would just have to hope that individual artists  --who understand that there's no chance they'll ever be able to even make some extra side income from their efforts-- will take the time to create spectacular animated wallpapers that loop perfectly and are encoded in high quality at high-definition. Maybe that would happen but I wouldn't count on it.

In addition, since the bandwidth bill would still exist, users would have to buy WinCustomize subscriptions to download after awhile.  So the "free beer" crowd would have to find their content elsewhere. But don't count on these being available on most sites. At 50+ megabytes a pop, it's a lot of bandwidth. Someone has to pay for it.

And of course, that would mean the software would have to start charging for extra features. Want to pay 3D dynamic content? The user would have to get the "Pro" version.  The point being, the costs of producing, supporting, and developing this stuff has to come from somewhere. Personally, I think a system which nearly everything is free but a handful of premium content isn't free is a pretty good arrangement for everyone.

Possibility #2: Enough users decide that there's value to animated wallpaper. If something comes along that is of exceptional quality happens to ask for a few bucks, then it's worth buying.  In that event, what would happen is that it would attract more and more talented people who would submit lots of free ones in the hope of eventually being able to occasionally release premium ones to help recoup their time and costs. It's worth mentioning one more time - Stardock Design's free to non-free ratio so far is 6 to 1. If other studios and independent artists of great skill start to do the same, that sounds like a win-win.

So far, the results have been good. In the first 4 hours of "Blissful Sunset" we sold over 200 copies of it. Whether that trend continues remains to be seen. There's always a big bump at the beginning. The typical WindowBlinds Master skin has an initial bump and then eventually trends to around 5 per day after awhile.  But even 5 per day, put over time, is worth it.  The author's share of that ends up being around $3,500 per year per skin (not counting the initial bump) -- enough to buy a new computer.  But skins are different because it's an established thing.  Animated wallpapers are brand-new. How things progress with animated wallpaper remains to be seen.

 

63,917 views 190 replies
Reply #51 Top
What these whiny asses don't understand is that it takes time to create these things. Time away from our families and sometimes our "real" jobs. Being a graphic artist myself, I completely understand this issue. I have only been using Stardock apps for about 8 months now and plan to start doing some skinning on some level, but haven't found the time. The guys who do find the time should be rewarded with an occasional sale of their goods, provided they are of sale-able quality. There are a couple of skins and DX Desktops that I would have gladly paid for, but got them for free on WC. Not to mention the fact that there is always FREE advice from some of the creators on the chat channel #stardock. These guys are just hanging out, happy to provide assistance with editing or customizing themes. I'm grateful the these people and Stardock exist to bring us all this great content, mostly FREE.
Reply #52 Top

Well, I don't have a vested interest in this particular thread, because I don't have Vista.   

However, I see legitimate arguments on both sides, just as Excalpius stated earlier.

1) Poor timing


Well, like I said, I and many others have not yet bothered to upgrade, so we have no use for DreamScene content--ergo, we're not buying it at this point.


Bait and Switch


It does seem a bit disingenuous, even if this weren't the intent of Stardock or Microsoft, to charge for demo content. I understand Frogboy's explanation of how this scenario unfolded, and it seems perfectly reasonable, but it seems as though some alternate arrangement could have been made (such as a one-time payment from MS?) to compensate Stardock for use of their content for this specific purpose. I think this particular piece of work may constitute a special case because it was used to showcase the DreamScene functionality of the new OS.


Having said that, I have and will continue to pay for premium content that I like from both Stardock and third-party users for two reasons: 1) I like it and 2) time=money and it costs time to produce quality content. As an example (and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here--this is strictly a matter of personal preference), I purchased the Fortune suite the other day because it looks cool and because I was one of those kids who was always fascinated with that folded blue paper suspended in liquid inside a fake 8 ball. I would not purchase the Texas Hold 'Em suite, because it doesn't really interest me.

Let's face it: if Stardock and master skinners gave away everything for free, how long would this site be in operation? Stardock's reason for operating this site is, as Jafo stated earlier, the same reason that most of us are here today and reading these posts. We enjoy tweaking the appearance of our desktop and/or laptop computers. Altruism has its limits, though, and if Stardock began losing money by the bucketload on WinCustomize, then it would be foolish of them to continue operating it, at least in the same way that it works at present. I believe that the majority of WC users, infrequent visitors/complainants excepted, share the view that the occasional purchase of premium content or subscriptions is a small price to pay to support our "skin" habit.

Well, that's my nickel and my dime, so go buy some 11-cent candy.   

Reply #53 Top

Kenwas .....unfortunately consumers [non-skinners/artists] can be oblivious to the REAL time/effort [and thus cost] involved in a skin or art creation.

When they/you/we pay $5 for something created that is not its cost of manufacture/production.

That is the cost of volume delivery, based on market projections of 'take-up'.

In simple terms, I design houses.  My output becomes a multi-thousand dollar piece of paper, Like Dali's clocks it has a very real and very HIGH value, a product of its uniqueness [originality] and, in the case of the drawing...practical application to the process of a specific building construction.

The 'original' is thus VALUABLE, its prints are priced as mere replication/distribution costs.

My unique output is therefore two prices.... thousands for the 'original' that the client never actually OWNS and a couple of bucks a sheet/copy for the prints that he DOES get to own.

To equate this directly with the Dreams price-point cost retrieval, I could charge nothing for the original...and just give the client a bill for $200 for each sheet of paper [print].

The cost of the 'original' [Dream design/creation] is simply being spread to a greater number of 'prints' because it is a product that has a greater potential customer count than my house dwg [which would be 'one'].

That doesn't sound any simpler, really....I'll stop now....

Reply #54 Top
I'll drop it here as well as it goes off topic for the thread. I am more than familiar with cost allocations and absorption and where they end up on a P/L versus a balance sheet. Once again, I wish you a great day!
Reply #55 Top
@
All you guys who think my statement about art is a joke...you're half educated and even less than half intelligent.

If you added up all the artwork created in the world and put it into 2 categories:

PAID vs FREE

Free would win because ultimately only the highest quality or most rare art sells for a price.

Too bad you guys cannot separate the trees from the forest and pick the most rare art in the world to use as your counter to my argument. Sucks to have your poor arguing skills...it's just not in your forte.

@
Frogboy

2GB? Are you on drugs dude? I've downloaded officially 79MB of FREE stuff.
I've bought over $100.00 of stardock apps since 2004.
Regarding your absolute BS # of 2GB if you factor in your site which takes about 100mb just to "load" into my browser I guess that might be possible as I visit your site daily.
Regarding my sharing, I tried to create MANY bootskins for free that were of popular themes but they were rejected because of "copyright" issues. So now before you guys all go and say I simply edited someone else's work -- learn how art is created and why it's created. Inspiration comes in many forms and people appreciate stuff that is not 100% "original" daily...including a premium dream scene that's idea is clearly RIPPED from a wallpaper found on this site (not created by WC or anyone at StarDock)...but no one in my corner throws criticism at that so let's hold comments back about what counts as sharing and what doesn't.

At any rate, the fact that WC let's people voice their opinions on this site has become something of a moot point. Why?

1) nothing we say is ever taken into consideration by the execs at either company
2) it's their site and business they will do what they want and it's not our call
3) anytime you get an admin avoiding key points only in attempts to hack someone down and divert the public's attention to useless squabble it's clear the intentions of the owners of this site: take money when possible and when criticized -- shut down the vocals ones.

I'm really shocked at you Brad. After seeing you present stuff at demonstrations, viewing your presentations on video, reading various articles, etc, I can finally see just the quality of person you are when someone presses you creatively and intellectually. Far be it from me to judge you, I'm only making observations. What I can say though you do not fit the stereotype of the: assertive, free-thinking, and less than aggressive typical artist. Instead, you're letting people see you sweat when pressed with hard issues that ultimately don't make or break your hard work here. That's lack of professionalism...
Reply #56 Top
I am so sick of people thinking because its ART or SOFTWARE that it has no REAL Value in the world.

I have been trying hard to make some part-time income from the gadgets I have been GIVING away for years. Its a hit and miss proposition, i have found people will shell out for something "cute" but something that has a lot of functions and is closer to a PROGRAM then a GADGET they shy away from, why? what has more VALUE? something CUTE that took me 2hrs to make, or something that is amazingly complex and versatile and took MONTHS to create?

For example, the Holiday Countdown that i have made and am giving away FREE here on this site HERE has a download count of 1381 (as of 2/21/07). That version took me somewhere around 70 hours to make work, and work without problems (if that is possible).

The PRO version HERE took me an additional 100+ hours to work out all the problems with making it work for USER events, with custom graphics, etc. So lets do a little math, say I make $25/hr, the FREE version COST ME $1,750, thats my time given away to anyone who wants to download it. add to the that the PRO Version costs ($2,500) and you have $4,250 for 1 gadget. Its selling for a whopping $6.95 ($5.95 if you had a code to use!), so i would need to sell 612 of these (give or take) just to BREAK EVEN. So when you ask someone to GIVE AWAY their work to you because you feel you are entitled to it, i only have one thing to say.. GO MAKE YOUR OWN "ART" and then you have room to talk.

If you have never made a skin, or even a simple gadget to see how long these things take, then "shut the hell up" you have no right to tell anyone they should or shouldn't charge for THEIR work.

YES it is WORK, not a HOBBY. Most of us started out doing this as a hobby, and we have fun with it, and i still do, if i didn't i wouldn't be spending hours making tutorials, and posting free content, but it is work, its time spent on something that i could be doing something else or hell, doing nothing.

It all boils down to this, if you like it, and feel the author made something worthwhile, and have the $, BUY IT, support them, and they might feel like what they are doing is worth the work and effort, if not, then dont expect them to keep pushing out quality work, because everyone needs to make $, sorry thats the way life is, and if we are spending hours, days, weeks, or even months on a project, then you have the right to do whatever you want with it.

RomanDA takes a min and calms down...
Reply #57 Top

Having said that, I have and will continue to pay for premium content that I like from both Stardock and third-party users for two reasons: 1) I like it and 2) time=money and it costs time to produce quality content.

I think this says it all.  I am confident that warreni is not the only one who feels this way.

Reply #58 Top
Just bought it to see if it exceeds my expectations. it is still downloading ...
Brad, what most people put off, me too when I first saw the prize tag, is the fact that in all communication towards the public MS and Stardock came forward as one team.
I read somewhere that Microsoft contacted Stardock to help them to create first class content.
In this light, most people expect you getting paid by Microsoft to do this.
Especially as this dream in particular was showed off by Microsoft to demonstrate Dreamscene on Vista Ultimate.
If on the other hand you have been paid to deliver a defined work, and this is indeed an extra, you have all the rights in the world to charge for it.
No one is obliged to buy it.
I am just afraid I will be changing dreams regularly, just as I do with wallpapers.
Never thought about paying for a wallpaper as there is so many beautiful free stuff around.
Jan
Supporter of Stardock since the OS/2 era
Reply #59 Top
So, in summary, I do think that Stardock should charge for its premium content and I hope all of us buy the occasional one we like. However, I don't think it was a good idea to charge for the very same video that got everyone excited during all the demos. Oops!

My two cents...and my $5 for the animated wallpaper.

Supporting the artists, DreamScene, and Stardock. Peace.



I agree with Excalpius I am on the WinCustomize side. I think it is fine to charge for the premium content. If I had Windows Vista Ultimate right now, I would go perches the background right now.
Reply #60 Top
Ahhh hello???? What are you guys smoking at Stardock with your scenario one and two crap???? IF you are goign to do that sort of BS then please follow through. I totally agree w/ most of what you have said in scenario one but you did not go to its conclusion. So after stardock starts charging all sorts of money for .dream files, dreammaker pro, dreamscene extra special deluxe pro (now with more colors...), etc. less and less people will come by to the site and interest will ultimately die in .dream files (there will always be the minority vocal fanboys but that will be all that is left)... Since they ahve laready paid for the program there is no new revenue coming to stardock from them so bottom lines get hurt and programs have to be discontinued...



So says Shadowlord, who, according to his profile, has submitted nothing of his own and has no wc subscription or hasn't bought anything.

By his rationale, he's a customer because he uses free stuff.
Reply #61 Top

I'm really shocked at you Brad. After seeing you present stuff at demonstrations, viewing your presentations on video, reading various articles, etc, I can finally see just the quality of person you are when someone presses you creatively and intellectually. Far be it from me to judge you, I'm only making observations. What I can say though you do not fit the stereotype of the: assertive, free-thinking, and less than aggressive typical artist. Instead, you're letting people see you sweat when pressed with hard issues that ultimately don't make or break your hard work here. That's lack of professionalism...

Yes, I can see how arguing that art has value might come across as unprofessional.

Seriously though, your argument boils down that this site exists solely to "Share" but what you really seem to mean is other people sharing.

For just one second, forget that the master skin was made by Stardock Design. Pretend it came from Master artist XYZ.  Does that change anything?  The whole point of the Master skin concept is so that the proven best artists have an incentive to put in the extra time to create something really special.

The people who can't or don't want to pay don't have to. But many people want this kind of content and they're willing to pay for it.  But the anti-crowd aren't just voicing that they wouldn't buy it, they are voicing that it shouldn't exist at all. If they had their way, they'd deny those of us who want this stuff the very choice to get this stuff.

If I like computer games and for years the only options were freeware games that have a certain charm but then someone comes by and creates a really outstanding game but asks for money, I don't mind paying for it.  I think we are better off with a greater variety.

If someone doesn't want to buy something, that's their perogative. But they're not stopping there, they are attempting to stifle the creation of premium content overall.  Someoe selling something doesn't hurt you or anyone else.

Reply #62 Top
The master content would require one to install a Stardock application (Dreamscapes) in order to use it.
Are these bitchy people aware that they are not usable without the Stardock app? Maybe it's more a matter of education.

On the other hand, I think it may have been a bit premature on Stardock's part to release a Master dream before MS has fully released Dream Scene. There would still be whining, but I think it would have been less if the full product had been out for awhile.
Reply #63 Top
I for one up front had a complaint a few days ago, which it turns out was baseless and I can admit when I'm wrong. I purchased the Blissfull dream and I'm glad I did, I'll also purchase any other good dreams Stardock puts out.   

Keep up the good work! Hopefully CPU usgae can be looked at by the driver companies or Microsoft since they made the claims up front.
Reply #64 Top
I'll keep this brief. Artists are more than entitled to be compensated for their creative efforts and I sure don't object to paying extra for Master Blinds if they strike my fancy.

The same goes for animated walls. However, I personally don't care for them ... don't like stuff moving on my desktop when I'm trying to get stuff done.

Folks who believe artists should starve can just go somewhere else.
Reply #65 Top
Brad,

You guys just keep doing as you're doing. You provide tons of free content (not to mention high-quality software that is either free or quite affordable). WinCustomize itself is a philanthropic endeavor, with Stardock footing much of the bill! Where would everyone be if WinCustomize no longer existed?

Personally, I'm quickly growing tired of all the people who complain about why this or that isn't free. It's as if they feel some sort of entitlement to it, which obviously isn't the case. This same mentality is used to defend, or at least rationalize, the piracy of software -- and in all likelihood, most of the complaints and derogatory comments against you are coming from pirates, anyway.

Everyone should make a return on his investment, somehow. Whether that be by increased goodwill derived from releasing free content, or modest monetary gain. Look, if it takes Stardock Design 500 man-hours to make an animated wallpaper, or an average bloke 1000 man-hours, only they can decide what kind of recompense is justified and acceptable to them. Who is everyone else to judge?

Best of luck to you guys for all your "post-Vista" plans. I hope to see some great stuff this year!

~Alessandro.


Reply #66 Top
1.) stardock (brad) previewed the theme, but did not release it

2.) stardock (brad) acknowledge that their initial releases were 'lacking', not their best stuff and were holding onto the better stuff for later

stardock made no mention in either case that it would be a premium release and cost money. you at the very least gave them no reason to assume otherwise, and honestly I don't care how you try to angle it, I think you intentionally mislead people to raise anticipation/excitment (sales?). i've been a customer for years, and defended stardock for the same time on neowin against people against any form of charging for software/themes (to illustrate im not against charging for themes), this is different, and honestly I expected better out of you guys.
Reply #67 Top
COPY/PAST OF MY COMMENT ON "Blissful Sunset"

Real good works here!

And for those who wouldn't pay for nothing i just say that:
It's not an obligation to support authors or stardock but i think really it's important to support good work if you want more.
Take an instant and see the work here and the time take to make it!
You want good work but you wouldn't pay for it i think it's idiotic.
If you make a good work for your boss and if at the end of the month you have nothing you think that is really bad not? it's the same here and for all master skins
If you are just customers and not creator you can't know all the work need to make a very good things like this one. And for informations all staff put like master skins was make by masters and it's their more better work. Ok that's for the work!
Now this site: since more years this site share free contents make by real good skinners the site is free (just you can subscribe for more contents and advantages and to support this site)
skins are free
and very much softwares are free.
If you want to continue to get more free skins or themes or wallpapers think to that
a site with his developers a agency with this free and not free software exist by money not by the grace of god. Here it's the real world not the "bisousnours"'s world (sorry it's a french series for little kids in years 80 more idiotic than teletubbies).
i repeat it's not an obligation to support but if you want to continue to get free staff in future this site must be continued to exist and it's for that masters skins was created not make more money(stardock have got games and software for that).
Ok first you not agree with this ok your better answer to that is not make bad comment or post but don't buy this skins (but no warez no crack just don't buy)
second you agree with this but you have not money ok said that you like them or not
3th you agree with this and you buy them good.
for information
i'm a simple cashier and a little french skinner (now you know why my english is bad)
AND i'm not in stardock team.
That's just what i think.
regards
Reply #68 Top
Man I'm super poor. I am struggling to pay for internet. And I don't have cable or even Caller ID (only 1 line too), No Cellphone. Very poor here.
I don't know the story behind this dream either.
$5 isn't really too much, but I'm not so much of a computer nerd to where I'd pay $5 to pretty up something that's going to be sitting in the background ATLEAST 85% of the time.
I don't get on my PC to watch a/the background/wallpaper. I get on to work, for school or just to play a game.
And from what I've read, to me, it does seem like a pretty rotten thing to do.
If I was shown a TV or DVD player that was very nice, had everything I needed, Then was shown a REALLY cool screensaver that the TV/DVD player COULD also play.
You can bet you're sweet behind I would be SUPER pissed if I bought that TV thinking I was also getting that cool SS with it just to find out it's an extra that I'd have to pay for.
You can also bet I wouldn't be getting that Cool SS, even if it was just acouple bucks, JUST for the principle of the matter.
But, I do believe artists need to be paid. Just not for this Dream.
But to each his own.
This was just a dirty trick. Because I bet all of my nothing that they had this planned from the beginning. Show them this Cool new Program that Vista can run, make everyone believe it's part of Dreamscene and then charge them.
It would have been different if in the Previews it was stated this was an Extra Add-on that needed to be paid for.
But like I said I don't really know the whole story of this being shown as demonstration.
Reply #69 Top

stardock made no mention in either case that it would be a premium release and cost money. you at the very least gave them no reason to assume otherwise, and honestly I don't care how you try to angle it, I think you intentionally mislead people to raise anticipation/excitment (sales?). i've been a customer for years, and defended stardock for the same time on neowin against people against any form of charging for software/themes (to illustrate im not against charging for themes), this is different, and honestly I expected better out of you guys.

From the first public unveiling of dream.wincustomize.com there was an area reserved for "Premium Dreams".

How can you possibly argue that Stardock misled people?  Explain why you think Stardock is obligated to give away an unlimited amount of free animated wallpapers. What is the justification?

FB posted this yesterday:

Top Premium Dreams.  Which part of that was confusing?

Reply #70 Top
Top Premium Dreams. Which part of that was confusing?


Reply #71 Top
Where will the freeloaders be when there is another subscription drive?

Apparently Dream files aren't the smallest of the bunch. There will be thousands of them within a year hoggiing bandwidth.

A good percentage of the people complaining are probably just discovering Wincustomize because of Dreamscene.

For crying out frikkin loud, let Stardock get back some of that bandwidth. The Stardock extensions are free. There will be a crapload of available free content. Alot will probably blow you away. Some will be for sale.

Nothing against anyone out there but my favorite Windowblinds skins are free. Premium doesn't mean the best. It means you can count on it. You can't count on free content.

Within a month you'll probably be tired of it and this will all mean nothing except more BS for Stardock has/had to deal with instead of improving on what they have done already... succesfully.

Anyone can make there own personal theme. It will cost them some time. Chances are they are not only cheap but lazy and unwilling to put down Halo for a few hours and make their own.   

Reply #72 Top
Wow. I'm not sure what is so difficult about this. If $5 is too much, don't buy it.

The good news for Stardock is that these people obviously aren't going to spend money anyway so should they leave then that's just one less bandwidth leech.
Reply #73 Top
If $5 is too much, don't buy it.

The good news for Stardock is that these people obviously aren't going to spend money anyway so should they leave then that's just one less bandwidth leech.


I agree full-heartedly!
Reply #74 Top
SSDD.
Same story/sh#t different day.
The same people who sit in front of their $600-$5000 computer with hundreds or thousands more in games and other programs and can shell out damn near $500 just for the OS want to gripe about 1....one.....ONE DAMN "skin" that costs less than $5.

The ones that really burn my ass are the ones that claim they can't afford it.....skip breakfast tomorrow, you'll have change.

If your so upset with Stardock DON'T buy it. Most of these people will never be Stardock customers anyway and will be the first to download the cracks off P2P.

I can't imagine why anyone would think they should get everything for free. I bet they're more than happy to put in a 40 hour a week for free - NOT. I'm sure it was a failing in their upbringing. They should be sterilized before they have a chance to procreate.
Reply #75 Top
If you have never made a skin, or even a simple gadget to see how long these things take, then "shut the hell up" you have no right to tell anyone they should or shouldn't charge for THEIR work.


Amen brother!

Is this whining or are the arguments really new...NO! It seems like every time something new comes out then someone is alway going to complain.

It's no different then people who try to compare open-source applications to privately developed applications. Don't get me wrong I use a number of open-source apps but, the features and abilities aren't and will never be anywhere equivalent.

I'm sick of this sense of entitlement that seems to be rampant in society today.