Sorry- this turned into an essay...
I tend to divorce the people involved in a creative endeavour from the people who make the money. Because I know from personal experience- those doing the creative work often aren't those making the most money!
There will be people say- involved in making a film or game that likely worked many unpaid hours- to create the details we all enjoy. Why did they do it? Probably because they were enthusiastic about having the opportunity to work on the project. To display their skills. To develop their skills too. That's why it's so easy to exploit creative people. They're probably doing what they love. So- they'll likely give their all- regardless of what they're being paid.
So- when I do pay a larger amount for a game I'm really excited about say- I can only really hope that the money goes where it should. But sadly- I expect it won't. But- it's mainly the companies that promote these products I believe that are trying to rip people off. Not the artists involved. Although of course- some are more money hungry than others.
I can usually still enjoy the work though- because I'm appreciating that artist's skill. I try- where I can to forget about the money bit. Unless the whole thing is massively disappointing.
But, there are certainly artists with integrity still out there. Who will refuse lucrative offers even, because they want to maintain control over the quality of their work.
Nick Park for instance- turned down a multi-picture deal with US. company DreamWorks Animation because he feared Wallace and Gromit would loose it's quintissentially British style and humour.
Of course, in an ideal world, art and culture should be free to all but- not everyone would want to contribute towards a tax to support it. Which is understandable. Why would someone be happy their taxes are supporting museums, galleries, libraries, concerts and the theatre if they visit none of them? So- I can see the need for there to be individual companies that work in these areas.
But of course artists are trying to make money ultimately. How else are they meant to pay their bills? Their publishers are too of course but they are effectively taking a gamble. I think you might need to consider that- not every book, film, game or song that gets published and promoted does well. Sometimes they will end up losing the producer/ publisher money. So- they will try to recoup their losses on titles they feel are more likely to be a hit. But- of course they're trying to make money. They won't stay afloat if they don't.
There's probably a fine balance though. Can a game developer say- really get away with releasing multiple shit quality titles? When will people simply stop buying and buy from someone else instead? Especially with so many online reviews now. We're much better equipped as consumers to make more informed choices. But- competition likely keeps companies on their toes.
Plus of course, there's the problem of illegal streaming and piracy. Companies have got to try and still make money with likely a larger proportion of people stealing their products! If you're selling 10 packets of crisps for £1 each and half your stock is stolen- what do you do? Accept the £5 loss? You probably don't have the money to sue. So, do you go under or, do you raise the price of the remaining 5 to compensate? So in part- it's people enjoying stuff illegally for free that also pushes up the price for everyone else.
But, as to the actual artists involved, companies sometimes treat their creative staff appallingly. There's currently a lot of drama surrounding the game: Subnautica 2. Where the game developers and publisher are at loggerheads. The developers accusing the publisher of sacking key staff and thereby delaying the release date and consequentially- the $250 million bonus they promised. The publisher saying they sacked those staff- actually the founding developers of the original (amazing) game because they abandoned their duties and stole confidential information. (Which seems ridiculous and unlikely to me. Why would they?) So- it's ruthless out there!
I've known loads of creative people be ruthlessly exploited- including me- by these bastard corporate companies. So- sure- I think some of the larger companies are blood sucking giants who want as much money as they can get!
But, I imagine many of the artists involved in actually doing the work are likely just regular people- who are also being exploited themselves most likely- by the same companies. Plus- a lot of the supporting staff are likely regular people too. Working in admin, accounts, HR, logistics etc. I suspect it's only a tiny handful of people that make the serious money.
Employees put up with it though- because they are being given the opportunity to work in the field they trained in- and likely love. They also get the chance to showcase their work to an audience. And, I'm happy to support them and am in turn- grateful people support me- in my creative job.
With your example though- David Foster Williams. I imagine the first book at least that he wrote- he may have had no financial backing at all to begin with. No guarantee of publishing even. Actually- I just checked and- he wrote his first book while still a student.
But certainly- with at least the first endeavour, I imagine a lot of creative people have more than just money on their mind. It seems more likely they are trying to create something worthwhile- to the best of their ability.
But, a book deal will typically see an initial fixed amount- an advance before royalties. From what I've seen- half on signing a contract, half on completion of the work. Then- a percentage of the sales- royalties over and above that initial advance.
So- it pays for an author to create a work that is so good- it will sell loads. So- the money incentive can- at least initially be tied to producing something good. They then of course may just become lazy and ride their reputation for as long as possible.
For example- think of how hugely valuable Harry Potter is now. The very first book though- JK Rowling received an advance of £2,500. If it had only sold a handful of copies- that's all she would have been left with! It's only because it sold so well and then attracted merchandise, film rights etc. that she's done so well. Authors aren't given millions for their first book- unless they are someone famous already say and are exposing a scandal. Publishers know they're taking a gamble. So- they bet as low as they can get away with.
Creative people also know how much competition they're up against. Of course, they do fundamentally want to be paid to do the job they love but- asides from maybe the odd genius, I imagine most are very concerned about maintaining and enhancing the quality of their work- so that they can still stand up to the competition. Ultimately, producers and publishers need to have the same goal too. If they produce too much shit- they'll eventually go down.
