>>6218192Your argument was "look at you people begging for this paid content."
The flaw in your argument that was pointed out was "nobody asked for this paid content, someone posted it anyway, and the people who saw it because of this said it wasn't worth $4, so none of what you said was true."
I understand that this might be upsetting to you for some reason but it doesn't change the fact that the whole paywall business model is stupid and unpalatable to your potential clients.
I personally would not mind paying a talented artist to produce a specific vore thing to cater to my tastes, but I would expect that thing to be shared with everyone after the whole transaction was completed. This model is also good for the artist because then other people will have more exposure to their art and be more likely to pay for commissions, themselves.
I WOULD mind paying money to someone when I have no idea what I'm going to get and have no creative control over it. And then, if I do pay anyway and am disappointed with the result, this makes me distrust the artist and be less likely to want to continue to pay for their products. That being said, the price to access art behind a paywall is drastically lower than the price to commission art in the first place, and you can get many buyers out of one piece of art that way. You probably wind up making the same or possibly even more money, even though most of your clients are dissatisfied.
That's basically what it comes down to. Most of the paywall type artists just aren't that good, and would therefore be less likely to be contacted for commissions. But, because of their business strategy, they're making as much or more money. We're encouraging bad artists to thrive by hiding the fact that they're bad from their clientele.
