FF StevieJs' Way

Sorry that you see my attempt to lighten up as childish. It's a shame you can't carry on an on-topic conversation without resorting to personal attacks.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

Wow... all that anger while I was posting...
Even though we're on opposite sides here we should at least try to be nice...

Hey Everyone,

After reading all of what I haven't already commenented on, I want to make one thing perfectly clear, so there is absolutely no confusion what so ever!
Very well said Steve! I VOTE FOR STEVE, SAME TODAY AS YESTERDAY!

T.L.W.,
VERY COOL BALL FILTER! A+ on that. Filter Forge is still a HOT TICKET!

Sooner or later, we will hear from Vladimir Golovin. I truly wonder, how much longer we have to wait?

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Ron

Granted, some things are easier to create in Genetica. FF can create "everything" that can be produced by Genetica.....and do it better because of better lighting system. Genetica can not produce everything that can be created by FF......not even close.....

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: My question was well intentioned. Was your answer?

I was just being a smartass...
There were really no bad intentions on my part.

The gumballs are made in the filter so I can get many variations before I even plug it into the bombers. A few things I've tried are doing one render with a super complicated filter... many renders of a simplified version layered over top of each other (either by saving and reopening the file or in PS as layers)... rendering seperate gumballs and then putting them through a bomber filter...

Quote
Sign Guy wrote: My points were specific to dealing with photo originals. I do not question that Filter Forge is an outstanding application for procedurally generated textures. Since you have not spent any significant amount of time using Genetica 3.5, you're not discussing facts ... just partisan talking points.

Filter Forge really could benefit from some more/better ways to deal with making tiles from photos. However, it's not impossible to make things that 'look real' with FF. Granted it takes some effort and time, and perhaps not everyone will be able to do it, but that's how it is with all forms of art. By the time Filter Forge 3.5 comes around people may not need to use photos at all anymore to create textures/tiles.

Quote
meyendlesss wrote: Perhaps this is a better example of the kind of tiles I am interested in making.

That's a nice one... if I get some time I'll see what I can do.
I'm sure it could be done in FF.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: In addition..... Big grin I think businesses, especially in the graphics market, need to expand and grow.....or they eventually die.....

Certainly expansion by diversification is a very desirable goal for most successful businesses and can be the livesaver for up and coming ones.

This can either be, as you're suggesting, in different markets, or indeed in seemingly identical ones, such as when Google bought YouTube whilst having already started GoogleVideo.

By whatever route, diversification into other markets does avoid a company 'putting all it's eggs into one basket'.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: and as for bittorrent and piracy, that's going to affect anything put out. it can all be pirated. we already know FF has been pirated, so a minor thing like a paypack or texture pack is going to happen regardless of which is done.

Well, I raised this point deliberately, not as an obvious generic one, but for a very specific reason. In my view, Filter Forge needs to diversify for two reasons. Firstly for the sake of the profitability of FF itself and to end these constant '40% Discount!' signs but also as a real incentive to filter authors, as Steve suggested. Whilst FF staff are more than capable of producing filters themselves, they will also be aware that to bring out the best in FF that they really do need the talents of the very best, creative non-staff filters authors adding to the filter library.

This is where the torrenting part fits in....whilst FF may be able to take torrenting of 'PayPack' filters in their stride, will the very filter authors who made them be able to do so? Bearing in mind, that half the goal of this is to provide a real incentive to those authors, it seems very unlikely. On the contrary, it could severely demotivate them, to the point of giving up. So, all that division of filter authors into 'Elite' and 'non-Elite' grouping, would have been for nothing.

However, when we look at the idea of selling texture packs, the position changes. It is possible to slip under the radar of torrentors, either by selling hard goods (CDs, etc.) or by producing such a specialised low-cost product, that they don't bother. Texture tile packs, etc suits both criteria ideally.

The so-called 'reputation' of an Internet pirate is based on the quality of the stuff they torrent out. A long list of very specialised low-cost products, will not rate them highly amongst their 'peers'. We, in the Open Source movement, come across them all the time - they torrent free Open Source products with spyware attached!

Quote
Kraellin wrote: so, how would you set it up if you were FF, inc., steve? would it be FF, inc. provides web space and a store front sort of like Cafe Press? and would they monitor content or would that be totally up to the authors? what would be your royalty basis/percentage for each? who is your target market? who does the advertising and pays for that? i mean, what's your model on all this?

Steve has already covered many of these points, but I would add that the only real cost to authors is time and is just webspace to FF. I would suggest FF setting up sub domains for the authors to use and the costs involved to authors is minimal. Ecommerce templates cost from $0 to $130 or so -

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/...templates/

http://www.theoscommercestore.com/

These templates are then edited to purpose using something like the free Open Source WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) editor, Kompozer -

http://kompozer.net/download.php

To assist you in editing, online tools and validating (so that it will work on all browsers) then go here -

http://validator.w3.org/

Which, by some miracle, is another Open Source project, this one funded primarily by *cough* the Mozilla Corporation - http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/Donate

So, yeah, with server costs very low (or free from FF?) these days and the stuff above, an author can set up an ECommerce shop front for zero cost, apart from time.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i still dont understand why you want to alter the eula. authors submitted their filters to be used by anyone..

Well, that is a question you should be asking Vlad. But, it should be realised that product/service companies also have to be happy with the EULAs attached and not just the users of them. It would appear that Vlad is not happy or content with the current loophole in the existing EULA, as relates to the reselling of unaltered texture presets.

As I wrote, I suggest you ask Vlad, regarding this aspect.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Blocking reselling, however, is something we'll need to do sooner -- because opening the library for submissions of V2.0 filters is a good opportunity to roll out a new licensing for these new filters. Incentives for authors can be added later.

Here's some more gumballs... seamless this time.

one more...

thanks, frank. very informative.

Quote
James wrote: As a user of both programs i think they can each do certain tasks simpler than the other though and both are great programs. It's same thing as i said last time, i agree with you on everything else but not the whole FF is better than Genetica thing. This thread has nothing to do with genetica really though.

I agree..... FF just gets alot more use for my own needs.....which is currently out of the mainstream of both programs.....

Meyendlesss i just wanted to say when i said 'Not helping things if you want realism' i mean to say 'not helping things for this thread but if you want realism'. Because i just read that again and it sounds different to what i was trying to originally say as it seems like im saying it's not realistic. I think it is a great texture already and realistic so i was trying to give tips to make it even better but my post sounds different when i just read it again sorry.

Hey Everyone,

Well said Steve! (Your post above). I agree with you!
Carl, you have a very good point also.

We are ALL still hopeing to hear from Viadimir Golovin, s o o n...(PLEASE)!

Have a GREAT day!

Ron

Quote
ronjonnie wrote: Carl, you have a very good point also.

Don't encourage him...... J/K..... LOL.....

Quote
James wrote: On many stock sites people now sell basically lots of library textures and the prices are usually much lower than $9 so if someone just wants a texture they could buy it cheaper than FF offers.

I've seen alot of that too. Quite alot of straight FF textures for sale out there.....and it seems that every time a new quality texture filter gets submitted to the FF library, the straight textures immediately start popping up for sale all over the place. I don't think everyone would be doing it if they weren't selling at all.....so my thoughts are why not take and consolidate that market here.....and use it here towards creating further author incentives, increasing customer traffic, getting continuous HQ filter submissions, etc etc etc.....doing quite a bit more for FF than creating pay-pro-filters and trying to keep this tightly-knit inside the FF box.....

Quote
James wrote: However if someone just wants a single texture they would probably just want the stock to save time from rendering it etc as this is one big reason why people buy stock, to save them time.

Exactly.....there certainly is a market out there for it.....it's just currently spread out all over the place.....which I'd like to see FF change..... .....

Now add in all the authors that have been looking for ways to sell their "TEXTURES" ***cough....NOT FILTERS.....uncough*** .....and the right path for FF looks pretty clear.....to me anyway.....

Quote

StevieJ wrote: Alot of FF authors are looking to sell their textures. If they sell sell them someplace else, they are not going to submit those texture filters to FF, give away what they are trying to sell, and undercut their own sales. The same will be true with authors selling their textures from here.....they are not going to submit the filters with the same presets to FF. What authors will do is submit "other" quality filters towards advancing/benefitting themselves with the further reward levels that I've previously mentioned.....

Quote

StevieJ wrote: 1) The first HU reward level "beyond" achieving lifetime program updates would be an author achieving access to having a storefront and the ability to submit texture packs..... 2) The next HU reward levels beyond that could be lowering the royalty split with FF in increments so that the author receives more of the sale..... 3) Other reward levels could be allowing authors to sell other work like art etc, greater storefront personalization/customization ability, better storefront sales tools, more server space, more storefront pages etc etc etc.....

Quote

StevieJ wrote: the whole "draw" of offering texture packs would be to save customers time in creating things themselves.....and to offer things that are unique and different from what can be created from FF filters..... With that said.....what do you think will mosty be submitted for texture pack sales??? That's right.....many textures made from FF competitor programs like Genetica.....textures made with FF in combination with competitor programs as well as host programs.....photographic tiles.....hybrid CG/photograhic tiles.....etc etc etc.....every possible tile under the sun could be sold here.....

There is ... let's call it, a hierarchy of financial returns in the world of graphics software publishing. I am listing them in the order of their gross revenue returns to their publishers.

1. Application publishing - Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Filter Forge, Genetica etc.

2. Modification add-ons to graphic applications - Alien Skin, CADTools, FluidMask etc.

3. Digital artwork created with #1 and maybe #2 and published in collections.

4. Digital artwork created with #1 and maybe #2 and published for individual licensing and download.

As one goes down the list, it becomes a matter of diminishing returns. #1 gets the lion's share, #2 gets a a decent share, #3 gets enough to barely get by and #4 is a bomb.

As a digital art collection publisher who has delved into online selling of individual image licenses with 15 years of experience, I can tell you with a high level of certainty that the logic of selling rendered textures is flawed and that you should be focusing on how to best sell the filters being authored for the best return.

To sell individual renderings or small packs of tiles has you competing in the lowest return on investment market for the customers who are willing to spend the least. That may not be what StevieJ would like to hear and certainly isn't what he wants you to believe ... but what the hell ... he has nothing to lose.

Where you should be focusing your attention is #2. The filters being authored here are of a value second only to the Filter Forge application itself. Filter authors could easily receive revenues from the sale of filters that WILL eclipse the best they will receive from sales of renderings by a factor of 500% to 1000%.

In addition, presenting and marketing filters fits right in with the Filter Forge business model and is infinitely easier for them to implement than would be a rendering sales venue. From experience I can tell you that you have absolutely no idea of the difficulties and shortcomings of selling the renderings themselves. In addition to the issue already stated, you will now find yourself selling the product instead of the tool. The buyers will frustrate you with specific requests.

"Do you have that carpet tile in blue and with a coarser fiber?" or "That electricity tile is great but I need it in green and with more bolts?"

Filter authors are in the position of being able to sell the #2 item in the hierarchy. StevieJ would have you believe that #4 is the best way to go. The facts don't support that and neither does common sense. StevieJ will probably respond with more venom and character attacks instead of opening his mind. He does this community and his argument a disservice in doing so.

For the record, everything I've posted in this thread is true to the best of my knowledge and I have no hidden agenda. I invite anyone to demonstrate otherwise. I have no plans to upgrade to FFV2 because it doesn't create the kind of tiles I find commercially successful and I am not involved in the markets the proposed texture selling would be mostly directed at. So it really doesn't matter to me what FF ultimately does. I think StevieJ's ideas are incredibly ill conceived and not thought through. But mostly I resent the personal attacks in lieu of a debate or an honest exchange of ideas which is what keeps this conversation going.

Perhaps it may be a good idea for FF to apply a referral/affiliate system to the texture sales so someone could link to the packs sold here and get a percentage... that works very well on some other art sites I sell on.

Fred has contracts with FF artists... what does that say?
Maybe those deals have not been very successful, but I have my own theories as to why that might be. I have a bit of experience selling texture packs to the game/3d art/2d art community and I've made enough sales to know it's definately worth the time. It's all so scattered out there though that it's tough to be seen. Having it all here on the FF site, with FF support... that's really the way to go.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I stand by my rationale for FF to consider getting into texture pack sales.....everyone else is doing it

There are a lot of others doing it... you're right, Steve.
Those others would have a hard time competing if FF gets in on this.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Sign Guy (Fred) opposes my ideas because what I'm suggesting for FF to do would pull authors and business away from him to here.....it's just that simple!!!

Well actually as has been stated over and over Stevie, and confirmed by others here, I'm not soliciting any authors nor am I accepting any new authors. Perhaps if you stuck with the issues instead of accusing me of something I'm innocent of, this thread might have been a lot more pleasant.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: That's rich, Fred.....you personnally attack me, then cry that I'm personally attacking you. If anyone even cares, they can go back and read who has actually done what to whom here.....

Works for me. I posted some points in post #14 of this thread and you responded with disparaging remarks and and insinuations in post #15 that I had a hidden agenda and was being less than honest. That I was fear mongering and trying to keep the "EZ-Render-Resell" gravytrain to myself. It isn't true and I consider that a personal attack.

Quote
Frank2 wrote: So, that being the case, will one of you now answer this simple question - 'If all of that is true, why has there been so much downright hostility towards Steve and his ideas here and why has every forum trick in the book been used to derail this thread and take it off-topic by any means possible?'

The only hostility I expressed towards Steve was in reaction to turning a posting of experiences in an open discussion by me into a series of character attacks by him and by you. That isn't any way to debate. That hostility continued and escalated because of continued character attacks in lieu of any meaningful exchange of ideas.

There were no tricks from any book intentionally inserted by me and any derailing took two or more to happen. I'll acknowledge that I've contributed ... will Steve and will you?

The points you make in response to Carl and your point #1 are the kind of points that improve and further the debate. I've stated that my experiences are limited to sign makers and wide format printers. That basically is intended to mean: take it for what it's worth. It may apply on a wider basis or maybe not. I also have the experience of setting up and running two sites devoted to selling digital art. Putting aside your opinions regarding my intentions, do you think the insight of that experience might be of benefit?

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Somehow the word "hypocritical" just doesn't quite cover it guys.

Seriously?!? You´ve been wanting, and asking and screaming for author incentives for how long now? (seems forever)Heck, you even convinced me! And what happens when Vlad comes out and says:

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote: This is something we definitely consider to be a viable solution -- but originally I wanted to do it via "paypacks" (as opposed to our freepacks), which will be installable separate plugins, each of which will get its own store page, help document etc. This model looks like a win-win for everyone (we increase FF's lifetime customer value, top authors get recognition and royalties, end-user customers get polished filters with dedicated documentation), but it remains to be seen whether it will perform well or not.

No, because this will happen and that will happen.... we don´t even know what the specifics are or how will this be implemented, and you want it to shut it down before we know more? The first real offer for author incentives from FF?!?!

It's too bad we can't keep this thread friendly.
Maybe we could all come up with a real solution that would make us all happy...

Quote
Genie wrote: we don´t even know what the specifics are or how will this be implemented, and you want it to shut it down before we know more? The first real offer for author incentives from FF?!?!

I think we're all wanting to hear from Vlad, or someone who can shed some light on the plans of the FF team. If they want to approach it differently it could still be a good thing. The paypack idea could work very well... selling textures could work very well... we'll just have to wait and see which direction they want to go in.

It is why i said i don't think much will happen, there is suggestions of interest in changing the EULA or having a system where users can get a return but then things get left for way too long with no updates at all.

The user base is always split on opinions because of what the program is also, on one side it allows you to create original textures yet on the other side it offers a huge library without restrictions on others work and makes this a selling point using stats like 7000+ filters etc. The fact the library is a selling point means there is going to be texture re-sellers using the app but also people making new work or using the app as a tool.

This is clear to many but it means when topics like this are going not much will happen but arguments until the developers say something will be done for sure or actually change the system being used. So right now i have basically the same thoughts as ronjonnie and i agree with StevieJ and think the library EULA should change for V2 etc but im wondering when somethings actually going to happen with all this.