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.

 

63,916 views 190 replies
Reply #176 Top
Brad, I think you could explain reasonable business practice till your blue in the face, shortly thereafter people will AGAIN demand free beer.

Im starting to think they whine and cry just to get you to defend yourself.

if I were you, I would state my position...move on...kill them with kindness.

"Thanks for the comments "
Reply #177 Top
One question:
Why ask and ask when you are the answer SD is not MS, MS ask to SD to make a good dream to show the power of their news OS, SD make a dream, MS show it, that's all!
Now here you can find dreams for free AND masters skins for $5!
MS have never said that dreams make by SD are all free!
It's idiotic to think that! And if you can download/use 100 dreams for free and (if you want) buy one for $5 where is the mater; why cry!
Reply #178 Top


I'm sure that was part of the licensing agreement when MS bought it. Just as I am sure that SD required MS to only allow video playback ability with the offical extra.


People being 'sure' of things doesn't make them any more closely based in truth.


People once were 'sure' the earth was flat....and in fact there are people who STILL are sure it is....



I have to give you props jafo, that's a nice dodge.

You basically just said that while MS did indeed purchase your IP that you cannot comment on it, and that the terms of licensing agreement are confidential.

If only politicians were so transparent
Reply #179 Top
When they did the demo for UE they stated that they were demoing content for DreamScene and that at launch there would be free content.

They therefore inferred that the content they were showing was said content.


implied

But there was no implication the particular one in demo would be free.

ex:

Here is some content. There will be some free content at the launch.

end ex.

Not, here is some content that will be part of the available free content at launch.


Nowhere do I see MS implied the demo'd content would be free.
Why people inferred it would be, I don't know.



You're making a clear deliniation, they however did not.

Here's more of an example of how it was put.

Here is one of the animated desktop backgrounds for our DreamScene Ultimate Extra. DreamScene is one of the Ultimate Extras that comes as part of the package when you purchase Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.
Reply #180 Top

You basically just said that while MS did indeed purchase your IP that you cannot comment on it, and that the terms of licensing agreement are confidential.

No, I said what I said.

If you wish to interpret the sky is falling that's your prerogative, however it'd be indicative of poor reading comprehension.

I am dodging nothing, nor have I any reason to communicate what was or what was not contracted between MS and SD for two very good reasons.

1. It is none of my business, nor is it anyone else's.

2. Stardock has quite open communication with the Wincustomize.com members [and other Stardock Customers], probably more-so than many Co's I could think of....which is good....and there are a [very small] number of people in a position to enlighten further [or not], whatever the reason....and I am not one of them....

 

Reply #181 Top

Here is one of the animated desktop backgrounds for our DreamScene Ultimate Extra. DreamScene is one of the Ultimate Extras that comes as part of the package when you purchase Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.

Wrap your dulcet powers of comprehension around this revised ver...note the difference...understand the distinction.....

Here is one of the animated desktop backgrounds for our DreamScene Ultimate Extra. Animated desktop backgrounds are one of the Ultimate Extras that comes as part of the package when you purchase Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.

Bit less confused now?...

Reply #182 Top
I want to thank all the people who have stepped up for the voice of the artists. I am a graphic designer and am rather active at Daz3d.com, where a lot of wonderful wallpapers are made. Most of them you ARE allowed to download FREE OF CHARGE, provided you don't take credit for their work. Personally, I see that as a common courtesy. You wouldn't buy a Picasso or DaVinci painting and call it your own, right? (Hint: the correct answer is "of course not"). Of course, I am preaching to the choir, so I'll end my "sermon" and let ya'll get back to enjoying the wonders of WC.
Reply #183 Top


Here is one of the animated desktop backgrounds for our DreamScene Ultimate Extra. DreamScene is one of the Ultimate Extras that comes as part of the package when you purchase Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.


Wrap your dulcet powers of comprehension around this revised ver...note the difference...understand the distinction.....


Here is one of the animated desktop backgrounds for our DreamScene Ultimate Extra. Animated desktop backgrounds are one of the Ultimate Extras that comes as part of the package when you purchase Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.


Bit less confused now?...




That is basically just rewording what I said to say the same thing. It has nothing to do with my power of comprehension, either. I was reading at 2 years old, and by the 3rd grade had college level reading comprehension.

So basically you're just trying to make yourself look smarter and oh so much more mysterious *rolls eyes*

Also just a quick note, the quality of this extra sucks. I decided to get it to see what the fuss was about and I can tell you right now this is not "dynamic" it's definitely a video made from a render and the quality level on it is absolultely ridiculous. At 1280 x 1024 I can see the compression artifacts from MPEG-2.

If you guys are going to be putting out "Dreams" at least make them high enough quality that you can't see all the artifacts everywhere you look.
Reply #184 Top

That is basically just rewording what I said to say the same thing.

No, there IS a difference.

Yours -  'Dreamscene [the proggy] is one of the Extras'

Mine - 'Animated desktops [the content] is one of the Extras'

Yours is what was stated...mine is what many people thought was being said.

Imagine it like this 'Media Player is included with the OS' - what is said.

'Musical content is included with the OS' - what some people thought they were hearing.

Who is to blame when obviously some people's synapses fire out of kilter and they hear what they want to hear instead of what is actually spoken?....

Reply #185 Top
Cumbayah meh lord..Cumbayah..   
Reply #186 Top
Lets see if I can clear this up for some of our more confused commentors...

DreamScene = playing flat video files on your desktop.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

DeskScapes = Extension to DreamScene, allows authors to embed credit information so they can receive recognition for their work.  We're working on adding in event-based triggers and the ability to run dynamic content.  All of this is bundled up in the .dream file format.

DreamScene = Windows Vista Ultimate Extra, free to users who purchase Vista Ultimate Edition.

DeskScapes = Stardock's extension to DreamScene.  The software to run .Dreams and to package them is free.

Blissful Sunset = An example shown at CES of what is possible using the technology of DreamScene in Windows Vista Ultimate.  Not an example of what comes with DreamScene in Windows Vista Ultimate.  Microsoft did not pay one red cent for this particular video.  That is a fact that no amount of conspiracy theory can contradict.
Reply #187 Top
Lets see if I can clear this up for some of our more confused commentors...

DreamScene = playing flat video files on your desktop.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

DeskScapes = Extension to DreamScene, allows authors to embed credit information so they can receive recognition for their work.  We're working on adding in event-based triggers and the ability to run dynamic content.  All of this is bundled up in the .dream file format.

DreamScene = Windows Vista Ultimate Extra, free to users who purchase Vista Ultimate Edition.

DeskScapes = Stardock's extension to DreamScene.  The software to run .Dreams and to package them is free.

Blissful Sunset = An example shown at CES of what is possible using the technology of DreamScene in Windows Vista Ultimate.  with DreamScene in Windows Vista Ultimate.  Microsoft did not pay one red cent for this particular video.  That is a fact that no amount of conspiracy theory can contradict.


So now you're saying that StarDock allowed Microsoft to use this video without stating the source & without any sort of payment?

Hmm, I really feel sorry for the author then since they weren't credited for their work, and that's what Brad was complaining about wasn't it?

Art being worthless and the artist deserving the credit for their work, right?


Also to Jafo once again you miss the mark *sighs*

There are some animated desktop backgrounds that come with DS by default, so when you look at it from the perspective of that it makes either interpretation worthless in this case, hence why I said you basically said the same thing I did.

Either way it's worded it would have been misleading in terms of what was being shown, that was part of my whole point that you missed. Microsoft misleading the consumer during demonstrations.

I was at a launch event in Seattle yesterday and had a chance to talk with some people about this very situation and they said that's why they went back to using the waterfall to demo DS now, it was misleading to let people believe that the sunset was part of DS.

Last but not least I ended up buying this on my wifes account and it will stay on her machine unless a better quality version gets put out. It's just very distracting to have really bad artifacts from the compression showing up.
Reply #188 Top

Either way it's worded it would have been misleading in terms of what was being shown, that was part of my whole point that you missed. Microsoft misleading the consumer during demonstrations.

Actually, you cannot 'mislead' by omission, only fail to inform.  Any 'misleading' was caused by presumptions on the part of the viewer, which is why there are also people out there who have NOT complained about events....

[and I bet Zoomba thought this was resolved after #186.  It's certainly MY last comment on it.  Time to move on]...

Reply #189 Top
Stardock has its own problems but I think this really is just Stardock taking crap for Microsoft's problem. Why the heck would anyone pay $400 for a home OS? Vista's a mess and a giant waste of cash, and these kids are posting complaining that they don't get more for their wasted money. Basically, all these ought to be forwarded to Microsoft to get Microsoft to pay Stardock for the extra art. Stardock's off the hook here.

Stardock ought to add ObjectDock Plus to their desktop suite and rethink this crazy WinCustomize redesign, but on this issue, the criticism is way off the mark.

As for art being worthless online... it is. Unless you attach it to something. In Vista's case - that's Vista. In everything Apple makes, it's their hardware and software. Bundle the art with something of dubious value and the entire package is worth a lot. Separate the 2 and you have low value for the item and worthless for the art.
Reply #190 Top
Executive Summary

Microsoft demonstrates Dreamscene with Blissful Sunset video made by Stardock, and says that Dreamscene will be included with Windows Vista Ultimate (Note! It does not state that the video will be included). Users assume that the video will be included free-of-charge with Vista Ultimate (Cost $400) since its demonstrated by MS.

+ Pros for Stardock
- Stardock believes in releasing episodic content with premium content to balance the cost of running the site and creating new dreamscene videos, and other expenses.
- Stardock helps out in the development of various aspects of Vista, ie theming engine & the dreamscene stuff.
- Stardock is a business, which means it is not in a position to be giving out freebies forever, thus making use of their IP to make some money
- Lots of other free videos are available for Dreamscene, and a user is not obliged to buy the video.
0 Neutral for Stardock
- Users belive that the video should be free with a $400 OS, which is shown in the demos (including the keynote) [Note! For this you should be writing in to Microsoft since they are the one who choose not to pay for the bundle and the resulting misconceptions]
- $5 is really just quite insignificant if compared to the price of a $400 OS.
- Cons for Stardock
- They should have sounded fire alarms since the Bliss wallpaper is one of the better ones and having demonstrated at various demos, should have made the distinction between MS and Stardock clear, and issued a statement that the animated wallpaper is property of Stardock, unless its bought over by MS