Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

:icondanlev: More from danlev

Featured in Collections


Articles and journals by Eitvys200

README.TXT by Thunderstatement

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
May 14, 2013
Submitted with Writer


34,313 (1 today)
26 (who?)

One of the most common requests we received upon launching Commissions was to raise the price cap to make it higher than 4,000 Points. As of today, the price limit when setting up Commissions has been raised from 4,000 Points to 8,000 Points.

We're excited to see the increased usage of the Commissions platform and the wide variety of work that artists have been offering. With this increased limit, we're hoping to give artists more flexibility with the types of Commissions they offer, and more importantly, allow artists to earn more for their high-quality creations!

Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 12.50.23 PM by wreckling

Add a Comment:
fenrysk-art Featured By Owner Jun 20, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
this has been much needed.
artvelocity Featured By Owner May 19, 2013
to the admins:

Cut that royalty in half.

I think 12.5% will satisfy all parties involved.
supichu Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2013  Student Digital Artist
MukArt Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
i still think they shouldnt take 20% of what i make. if i didnt pay for a membership, i would understand them getting some of the money for the service, but i pay for a membership. :/ i pay for the special features and that royalty is crap when im already paying the website to use its fancy pants extras. will be sticking to paypal most likely. they should get rid of the royalty for paying members :/ or at least lower it
Skunk-Spunk Featured By Owner May 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay, you're finally listening to us.

Now, how about planning on fixing that 20% royalty?
Cyrkael Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Good news for those who don't want to use paypal and still take commissions =)
On the other hand, what about the 20% fee ? Lowering it would certainly make people less reluctant to use the widget and would be a win-win situation... Or am I totally wrong ?
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
According to previous replies from staff members, I believe lowering the 20% isn't really an option, plus the 20% figure is considered more advantageous than what a typical gallery would charge you for this kind of service.
Cyrkael Featured By Owner May 19, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Oh really ? I never considered what the prices of typical gallery would be, but I think I wouldn't be ready to have that amount of money leaving my pocket and not going to the artist...
Though I totally understand dA needs money to maintain the system.
Imaginary--Thoughts Featured By Owner May 18, 2013  Student Writer
A real-life gallery and dA aren't totally analogous--a gallery has to contend with the physical limitation of how much wall space it has available and the fact that it loses money when it displays a piece it doesn't sell, so it makes sense to charge a somewhat substantial royalty there in order to make up the risk factor. In this case, the 20% royalty is preventing many users (including myself) from using the platform at all and is not necessary to compensate for any risks involved because there aren't any. If dA lowered the royalty to something that people wouldn't be bothered by as much (5%, maybe), then many more people would use the service and dA's net profit would go up. It really is better for everyone to lower it and it's becoming annoying that they're so silent on the issue in these updates when the royalty being as high as it is clearly is bothering many users.

TL;DR version: dA's service is the same as a gallery's, but it's needs as a business and the risks it's taking to provide that service are different so it doesn't have to follow the same procedures.
ItsNotFilia Featured By Owner May 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
the 20% royalty... is not necessary to compensate for any risks involved because there aren't any.

You'd be surprised.
Nevertheless, you'd still be paying for maintenance of that system (and only if you manage to sell) and you're still free not to use the service in the event you deem it insufficiently beneficial.

(5%, maybe)

With the risk of sounding like I was against you: dA, as a business, have access to a good deal of telemetry to aid them in assessing point traffic, service costs and other sorts of relevant information; what sources are your numbers based on?
Add a Comment: