Graphic Packs - lots of PNG files or just raw EPS - opinions please!

debugdesign

Hi Guys,

I have been creating a tonne of graphics for you to use on your games and wondered if I am wasting time by png'ing all the files.

For example, trees and Buildings can be varied sizes so is it worth me creating a 32, 64, 128, 256, and 512 high version or would you prefer to get the EPS file, resize and color yourself and then export how you like.

Let me know because I can get these packs out quicker if I didn't have to do all the PNG variations.

Alternatively, if you don't know what an EPS is and you would like the files in ready to use PNGs also let me know.

Thanks

fzeed

Oh man, i want the EPS. Not being in vector format is what stops alot of my purchases from alot of different artists. And the ones that offer both PNG and EPS usually charge alot more and i don't like that either

GamersRejoice

I agree, I would include an eps file with all of the artwork, AND png's. This is a standard for icons and illustrations you purchase or get for free.

debugdesign

I was afraid you would say that... My surprise will have to wait a few more days!

DreamLab

Yah it saves a butt load of time if you just give them the .eps because inkscape is free, so they can just size it to their needs. But some people would rather not do that.

debugdesign

Votes seem to Mirror my thoughts... 8 for the EPS only and 8 for EPS and PNGs. TSB is right... People want their monies worth!

Barrythe

Voted Png and EPS. If I wanted to use a library graphic but I wanted to quickly recolour a part of it first for example I'd much rather edit the vector directly than try and mess about with a rasterised image. Definately not EPS only though as that would limit the majority who don't know what an EPS is, and would spawn dozens of "Why won't my EPS file work in Gamesalad" type threads :-)

Good luck with the packs too, I've been thinking about doing this myself for a while now, I bet you're about to release all the things I had been planning to do ;-)