In recent years, content creation on the internet has changed

>>1852766
>to the point where people can't be creative unless they are given cash

Which is how it should be. Making art creation dependent on market forces would remove a lot of degeneracy.

>>1852766
There will always be the next poor college student or 12 year old using his allowance to donate to streamers and such, also you have to look at it as purely entertainment, many people have the internet and the numbers will only increase as time goes on.

Youtube and online content creation has already become a place where you can make big money but as time moves on the potential money to be made increases by an insane amount. Do you think corporations are going to ignore this? Already plenty have ventured into large online content creation campaigns. Basically online entertainment is the future of entertainment period. Those that can start now and find ways to survive for the next 15-20 years online will become literal gods for the next generation of global connectivity.

>>1852780
>Making art creation dependent on market forces would remove a lot of degeneracy.

That's how it degenerated in the first place.

>>1852766
>The majority of the people who pay internet content creators are low income individuals
Care to back that up with any statistics? I don't believe it, but even if we assume the majority of people supporting creators are poor, they are for sure not responsible for the majority of funds. The pareto principle applies - 80% of the money comes from only 20% of the people. A hundred students chipping in 2 bucks are eclipsed by a dude dropping a cool $400 on a patreon, or donating $1000 on a stream, perhaps once a month.

Also, you'd need to account for the substitution effect. They probably wouldn't save the money, but blow it on other entertainment. In the past you used to buy CDs, pay for movie tickets, have cable TV, that sort of stuff. Nowadays you are on Netflix and chip in on Patreons.

And if we're strictly talking economics: Savings are awful in the grand scheme of things. Gotta keep the money flowing, contributing to the GDP. Savings funnel money away from the economy.

>Will this bubble ever burst?
Which bubble?

>Not only that, but if an individual truly wanted to make videos, he would do it without caring about money.
Right. The old argument that artists should rather starve than risk making their art "impure" by bringing money into the equation. Honestly, I'd rather have an artist I like work full-time on their projects and not have them slave away at two dayjobs and squeeze in their hobby project 2 hours a week.
And we're not talking about high art here. We're talking about lowly entertainment for the masses. Nobody's compromising any integrities here. They're clowns and actors. Those earn in circusses and on TV - so why not the internet?

>What are your thoughts on this?
I think Patreon is the best thing to happen to the online entertainment economy ever. It cuts out the middle-man. It makes the awful ad-based revenue model obsolete. It's 98% voluntary - most creators still release all their content free of charge. Only those who want pay.

>>1852780
>Making art creation dependent on market forces would remove a lot of degeneracy.
Oh boy, have I got some bad news for you. Among all people offering commissions, furry artists by far rake in the biggest dough. It's not even funny, how much money they can make with sub-par drawings, just because they cater to a marginalized fetish. People are degenerate by nature and market forces only amplify this.

>>1852831
There are two ways of looking at all of this. I have nice memories of browsing youtube and newgrounds and watching flash animation and silly videos with not a single plug in advertisement. Now youtube is swamped with young cool kids advertising the next great video game consoles and then asking for donations at the end of their videos.

>>1853408
You are complaining about a free product. Vote with your feet - if you don't like it, don't watch it. If you keep coming back to videos which infuriate you, you've got no-one to blame but you. It seems they are still offering something that makes you accept the trade-off of having to listen to their pitch. I could somewhat see the point of someone complaining who is already a contributor having to listen through the e-begging all the time (sort of like how it's utter bullshit that the people paying for movie tickets are the only ones who get anti-piracy ads shoved down their throats). But since you stated you've stopped contributing, you have no standing telling the creators how to make their product. Nobody forces you to watch them and it costs you literally nothing.

Besides - internet entertainment is a huge vast landscape. There are plenty of people out there who haven't over-commercialized their video productions. If you stick with the mainstream you're gonna get the mainstream. Find someone better instead of willingly watching bullshit videos that make you rage.

>then asking for donations at the end of their videos.
Then fucking close the video once it reaches the end. Are you 12?

Besides: Where are the statistics about college kids wasting their money on Patreon? Which bubble do you think will burst?

>>1852766
tbqh without youtube most people would have killed themselves by now because of high student loans and depressing job prospects

So funding Youtube content creators is just small price to pay

>>1852766

I did not really care about it but when the professor went straight up begging while already being in a solid position I fucking hate it and him.

>>1854149
I've thought about donating but they chose to live this way so why help them