At 2/26/16 08:50 AM, TomFulp wrote:
If we moved this way, I'd actually be tempted to require supporter status to participate... This would encourage more people to become supporters (increasing the pot) but would also drastically reduce abuse, since content creators wouldn't be competing with every sweatshop trying to drain a buck out of the system. In THIS situation, it would be interesting if your earnings could also go to renew your supporter status - so you might pay $3 to get started (or use existing earnings from the old system) but if your content does well, it covers your subscription from that point forward and feeds back into the system. This does mean that less successful artists may just get the supporter perks and not earn a check but they will also be supporting an ecosystem that would theoretically pay better for the most deserving artists on the site, and the goal would be to reach their level.
I'm really not a fan of this idea, it basically means that in order to make ad revenue, everybody participating would have to invest money for the chance to get anything out of it. Who would do this? The only people who come here are the starving artist types, not trust fund babies. What you're describing is more akin to a Poker game than earning money. Why would I bother investing money to participate in this program unless I had some sort of guarantee I would get paid out of it? If anything, this would motivate people to sign up with CPMStar at other places like Funny-games.biz, use Patreon exclusively, wait until they have enough content to flood the portal like lottery tickets or best of all, attempt to game the system.
if your content does well, it covers your subscription from that point forward and feeds back into the system.
If my content does well, I should get something out of it, not merely spared from some sort of penalty.
This does mean that less successful artists may just get the supporter perks and not earn a check but they will also be supporting an ecosystem that would theoretically pay better for the most deserving artists on the site, and the goal would be to reach their level.
In other words, everybody outside of the top elite would get consistently fucked for not being the top dog.
content creators wouldn't be competing with every sweatshop trying to drain a buck out of the system.
No, the real content creators would get fucked out their hard earned pay because those shovelwear developers depend on quantity to make their money, therefore, they would be among the more successful people purely by means of attrition. It wouldn't matter if you only got 200 views for a game you just shat out because you would have dozens of those games earning the same amount regularly.
they will also be supporting an ecosystem that would theoretically pay better for the most deserving artists on the site, and the goal would be to reach their level.
How exactly are we going to define "deserving" between thousands of users? How are we going to quantify quality throughout the hundreds of submissions that come in daily? Not only does this sound like a herculean task but what's the percentage spread? Do 75% of all participants just get screwed? Is it gonna be a limit of twelve eligible participants like on the front page? Are we gonna use the monthly votes? Is it spread across the 50 best submissions of all time?
and the goal would be to reach their level.
I can totally see a group of people at this "level" banding together to secure their status & keep out the plebeian masses from reaching that level, like a blam crew.