The need to earn money incentivizes people to work on things that are useful to others. If people only followed their passion, and the results of that are of no interest to others, why should others pay them to do that?
No, it does not. The need to earn money incentivizes people to work on things that allow them to extract money from others. This sometimes happens to line up with "useful", and there's probably even a positive correlation overall, but they're not remotely the same thing.
You're talking about things like acquiring money through force or fraud. This is not how free markets work. Free markets work by creating products that people want to buy and freely trade their money for.
If I create a widget and you want it more than the money it costs, I am not "extracting" the money from you.
On the other hand, the need to be able to sell things means the quality has to meet the customer's expectations.
For example, cars produced by free market companies far exceed in quality those produced by socialist operations.
In fact, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any examples of anything people made purely for their own amusement being better quality than items they made for sale.
For example, the software I write for my own personal use tends to be pretty slipshod, as it only has to work for my use case. I don't bother with coherent error messages, documentation, a decent user interface, or fixing any bugs that don't directly impede what I use it for. Doing that stuff is simply not worth my time unless I'm planning on distributing it.
So, a product for which people are willing to give you money in exchange. People are not likely going to buy a shitty product unless the situation involves monopoly (natural or otherwise) or regulatory capture
It's also possible to create content that's more experimental and creative, by focusing on more niche audiences. This is evidenced by the current golden age of TV and streaming, with a wide variety of dramas, comedies, documentaries, etc.