You essentially said, that it's okay for someone to not get paid for his hobby
I said that the value is dependent on the number of followers, and the level of engagement of said followers. Your analogy of the paid mods completely misinterprets what I said. If anything, what I'm saying supports 'paid mods' not denounces them.
end users aren't going to pay for anything, that they can avoid paying for.
That is an assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again. I myself have donated to podcasts, musicians at bandcamp.com, etc. In my original comment I linked to Patreon and the Flattr idea is another great example.
The fact that you don't think it's possible speaks directly to the entrenchment I am talking about. Participate, share the idea. Pessimism, and complacently embracing the status-quo never achieved anything worthwhile in the history of mankind.
If you think it's a good idea, do it. If you don't, then continue with ad-supported media... but don't blame users for using ad-blocking software when it's an existing technology that is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
That is like the music industry suing users in the mid 2000s instead of offering a reality-based, realistically-valued digital distribution method... like we have in spades a decade later. You can't just denounce reality and expect it to change.
That is an assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again.
Has it really? I would think, that getting gamers to voluntarily pay for anything would be a huge challenge, when they so often aren't willing to even pay for games they're playing. Sure, there are some successful Patreons and Kickstarters and whatnot, but it's not as simple as replacing ads with a donation button, that isn't going to work for the wast majority of content creators. When even Wikipedia, a resource used by half a billion people each month, struggles to get donations, what chances does everyone else have? I agree with you, that donations would be the ideal future, but I don't share your optimism.
I said that the value is dependent on the number of followers, and the level of engagement of said followers. Your analogy of the paid mods completely misinterprets what I said. If anything, what I'm saying supports 'paid mods' not denounces them.
That is an assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again. I myself have donated to podcasts, musicians at bandcamp.com, etc. In my original comment I linked to Patreon and the Flattr idea is another great example.
The fact that you don't think it's possible speaks directly to the entrenchment I am talking about. Participate, share the idea. Pessimism, and complacently embracing the status-quo never achieved anything worthwhile in the history of mankind.
If you think it's a good idea, do it. If you don't, then continue with ad-supported media... but don't blame users for using ad-blocking software when it's an existing technology that is becoming more and more ubiquitous.
That is like the music industry suing users in the mid 2000s instead of offering a reality-based, realistically-valued digital distribution method... like we have in spades a decade later. You can't just denounce reality and expect it to change.
Has it really? I would think, that getting gamers to voluntarily pay for anything would be a huge challenge, when they so often aren't willing to even pay for games they're playing. Sure, there are some successful Patreons and Kickstarters and whatnot, but it's not as simple as replacing ads with a donation button, that isn't going to work for the wast majority of content creators. When even Wikipedia, a resource used by half a billion people each month, struggles to get donations, what chances does everyone else have? I agree with you, that donations would be the ideal future, but I don't share your optimism.