Aren't we selling graphics here?

I’ve found that recently there were web items released that include XHTML /CSS code. I’m sorry, but isn’t this a place to acquire graphics? Don’t you have Theme Forest for code stuff?

Look at it this way: someone starts selling graphics with code here for the same (very low) price as graphics without code. Buyers will probably like it. Then, more sellers are going to start doing the same to stay competitive. Again, more time and work for the same money (which equals less money in the end). That is for those graphic artists who CAN code. Then, buyers will become used to it and won’t buy anything that doesn’t come with code. This is a huge disadvantage for graphic artists.

I really think GR should stick to sell graphics. Soon, there will be flash snippets, javascript buttons, creative copy text for webs and flyers and translation services (hey, I can translate!) I’m not opposed to offering more alternatives to cover more niches, but it should be clear and if the added items are included with the graphics, they should cost more. Although I think if this place is named GRAPHIC River, it really should reflect what one can find here.

+1

yep…atleast someone have spoken…dude, i assume all this is just coz of a small trick the management runs behind this days…is the licencing matters. GraphicRiver schould be keept away from items even with a single line of code snipet inside…this is the reason why this site is build for (i hope). I assume they want to make all the licencing options same on all marketplaces of envato…i am excited to see where all this will end …right now it looks likle things doesnt run for the authors benefits that much!! Recently, i read a post by the GR administrator that now envato even plan to offer some sort of abnormal licences for templated items…this is sick, this site members doesnt consist only from 15 years old kids with an crappy laptop and hacked copy of photoshop and flash…hear management?

alright, so we GR authors can start to produce and submit some sort of files such as simple coded contact form templates ect…and they will get trough the review and approval process and get available for purchaise?

The graphical elements of the file will be the elements reviewed and priced accordingly. So in your example, you can design a PSD for a contact form, then included a small code file to demonstrate how it can be used. Just keep in mind that the file will be reviewed and priced based on the graphic design (the PSD file), not the code work. As always, we try to keep the primary focus of GraphicRiver on the visual design.

i think this can be really valuable on the long run for the author if such code reference file is included as there is an oportunity to showcase some sort of simple live demo or base code to start to build upon and buyer can get an idea on how to use the file and plan for their next project…great

+1 +1 +1

I ask you to please reconsider it. Theme Forest should be the place for code snippets. Or, if you want, Snippet Cloud or whatever other new site, like FlashDen but for code snippets.

Soon, people who know how to code will have a clear selling advantage as opposed to those who don’t, even though it would hurt them because they will have to work more for the same amount of money. This just isn’t fair. Just like you say reviews will focus on the graphic part, the rules should have to be fair for graphic artists. This only gives a perceived advantage to people who can do something else than graphic art. I really don’t see how that’s fair in a graphic site

I once had a file rejected because it came with the advantage of having a clipping path, but the reviewer didn’t know what that was, so he rejected it. I offered a graphic added value and my file was rejected. Someone offers something else than graphic value and it gets approved. I think the efforts should go to expand the knowledge of the niche we’re dealing with here.

Remember, this will only hurt everyone in the end. I don’t mean to sound rude or anything, I’m just deeply concerned because I’ve seen this many times over and I know it’s only a downward spiral.

Im for for offering the sellers more. If someone can offer more to the seller, it is a disadvantage, but that doesn’t mean that its unfair… If anything, its unfair to the seller to get less