Well I'm not going to throw a fit or call people angry names. But, I will state the fact that as of last August till today there have been 115 Master (pay) Styles out of 180 posts. This ratio has jumped dramatically since win 10 with 44 of the last 60 posts being Master styles, and 40 out of 60 the next 90 posts,were again demanding payment. A ratio of 50% would be nice, While I understand making skins are hard work, nobody put a gun to your head and made you do it, Stardock should shoulder some of the burden as it is their business they reap the profits, but not being able to get the skins you would like or at a reasonable price is frustrating. As voiced by many skinners they don't get paid much yet the work they do is fantastic, so why should we the subscriber have to also support what Stardock should be doing. If it were a matter of paying a couple bucks for a theme it would be different as $7.00 is lunch or gas etc... As I see it stardock has taken its product and changed the way they operate and are using their power to shove this ungodly gob of chicanery down throats. Make no mistake I and others will see no reason to even renew if this treatment of your customers stop. Stardock you have killed the golden goose with your avarice.
Ah...there's a name from the past.....good to see you again...
The concept of Commercial skins is to benefit/reward the Master skinners, not to profit Stardock. They don't.
The benefit to Stardock is to entice/promote skinners to continue to produce more [in spite of them being more complex/harder to do at each 'update' to the Windows OS].
Commercial skins have been around since the dawn of Wincustomize itself...
Hi,
why can`t here simply be a small option to view some recently updated master skins and after that all free themes ? That would stop these threads easier than writing the same thing every time.
With the current ratio it seems to some end users that all skins are commercial ones which isn`t positive at all.
I do agree that mastermind could get their own gallery. It would cut down on the countless posts on the subject.
OK.............So I am old and out of it. But my question to all of you is this: Did Goghgan, Monet, Van Dyke, Turner, charge for their talent by the hour?. NO.they created ART for the sake of creating it. They did not create for the sake of anything else other then the sake of creation. I understand the hours put into the great works that people do. But I can't forget the joy of doing for the sake of doing. I have been a painter for most of my life. The joy of the "doing" was all that I have ever looked to. Sometimes I succeded, sometimes I failed. but that never stopped the reason I painted. I painted because it was called forth by the act of painting, because of the pure joy of painting. Painting by the hour, or the amount of time, or the effort put into the painting.......was never the driving force behind the force of me driven to paint. If it have been so, maybe I would be rich...............and called Microsft.............by the hour.
It can be both you know.. -A Passion, And a living.
Once again...............who is listening? What do you understand about : art for the sake of the sake of art. All of your BS has noythging with the original concept of this site...............which was the "sharing of art" and that you creatied"........................ENOUGH of the "reationiation".
Essentially, yes.
Their profession was their painting.
There is a word used in the 'art world'....it's "commissioned".
WHEN an artist has renown he can, and does - charge.
Michelangelo and Da Vinci did it for money, just to name a few. There are plenty well known old time musicians and painters who had to live from their art and where paid by kings or celibrities oe even the church in ancient times. Please get Your historical facts right. Thank You.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
