JPEGs of Maps from the Various Map Packs in the Store

[jajen2003]

Just a quick question...

Hypothetically, if I were to purchase a map pack from the FG store, would have access to the JPEGs from those map packs that I could modify in Photoshop, or do they only open specifically in Fantasy Grounds only?

[damned]

Just a quick question...

Hypothetically, if I were to purchase a map pack from the FG store, would have access to the JPEGs from those map packs that I could modify in Photoshop, or do they only open specifically in Fantasy Grounds only?

The majority of newer map packs are encrypted packages now.

[jajen2003]

The majority of newer map packs are encrypted packages now.

Bummer.

Looks like I'll just keep buying artwork from Roll20 and using it in Fantasy Grounds.

I'll spare you and Doug the repeated advice I've given in the past.

Such a shame that's how you guys still do business.

[jajen2003]

Doug, why do you choose to encrypt map packs, still?

This completely removes any customization from any map packs you offer in the store.

On Roll20, I can buy a map pack, download it, take it into photoshop, alter as I need to fit my campaign, then use it again in any software I wish.

How do you expect to sell maps to people who can't even get the jpegs of those maps?

Have you even been selling map packs? If so, I'm sure your sales would go up if you let people actually alter them as they needed for their campaigns.

Another smart and savvy thing Roll20 does, the maps packs are modular. Meaning, I can buy a map pack of just raw pieces, so I can custom build maps. Map assets for sale that are meant to be modded and arranged.

I feel like FG is becoming less and less relevent and it's becoming harder and harder to support what you're doing. It's as if you've impriosoned yourself with licensing and intellectual property restrictions.

I really have no other reason to keep supporting you guys. Can't even download the artwork for sale. Have to use it in FG only.

Look how nice Roll20 is. "We have art for sale. Don't want to use it on our system, no worries. You can still buy it from us."

FG: "For the same price as Roll20, we can offer you less that you can do less with and only use it in our software."

Not. Smart. Doug.

[Nylanfs]

Why not buy the maps directly from the artist? Most of them have selling rights and sell them in their website. Plus you support the artist directly.

[jajen2003]

Why not buy the maps directly from the artist? Most of them have selling rights and sell them in their website. Plus you support the artist directly.

I do actually. I know Gabriel Pickard. We have a similar illustration style. He and I make content the same way. But, since he does it more often than I do, I just buy stuff from him.

I guess technically, with the JPEGs I could just give them away, but that's not ethical or the decent thing to do. I bought them, so I use them. I don't give them away to friends or others who didn't pay for them.

I was merely referencing Roll20, since that is where I discovered Pickard. Also, since Roll20's business model regarding artwork is far superior to what Doug is doing; far superior in price, in quality, selection, and usability.

I'm trying to get Doug to be able to compete. Challenging him to change his business model so that he can address a portion of his business that is entirely subpar and in need of attention.

They bought the rule set, they bought the books, now what? Maps and art assets. That's the last area to mine once you have a core base of customers that already owns everything you offer. Sell them art.

But not how he's doing it currently.

Change your deals with your sellers and compete, Doug. Compete with Roll20.

Like I said, it's harder and harder to justify to people why they should use FG vs Roll20. The unity build is taking forever, and in the meantime, he's losing access to new customers with ineffective and antiquated business models.

Capitalism.

[LordEntrails]

Though I don't know this for sure, I imagine it is the choice of the publisher (i.e. artist) whether of not they want their map pack encrypted in their FG products.

Given how often I hear artists upset about their products being illegally distributed, it doesn't surprise me that when given the choice to protect their IP they would choose to do so.

[bloodydrake]

Honestly this is super easy to work around

1. Open any purchased module that's encrypted
2. open map in fantasy grounds and reset zoom to full
3. us snip it or snag it or whatever screen capping tool you want and take picture of your screen and save
4. adjust image to include a side that was cropped off
5 open irfanview(or whatever free image viewer you prefer) and crop and combine images and save..now do whatever you want to the map add the map back to your campaign and drag over pins from locked map to your new unlocked map.
6. have some fun gaming...for about 10 maps like this should take all of 30mins to do.

[dberkompas]

<redacted to protect the...>


Dave

[ddavison]

This same discussion was started on the Steam forums, so I don't want to go into a long drawn out discussion in two places. The short gist of it is that each artist/publisher gets to determine the pricing, packaging and encryption level of their products. The default option now is for encryption. The default for products over at DMsGuild for FG compatible modules is un-encrypted. Roll20 has locked content as well, so it really depends on the artists' wishes.

You don't really have any empirical evidence that one version sells better or worse than another. I understand that the encryption issue does not satisfy your needs. If you have an unencrypted version available elsewhere, you can buy them from some there and import them into FG fine if that is your choice.

I'm going to close the thread since it's already elsewhere and the OP has had an opportunity to share their views.