Thank you! The really hard work is going to be going back through our entire catalog and working with everyone to get everything updated. heh. 
I agree with , these really long videos (as I did myself for my minimap) are not really ideal to attract a potential customer who was not specifically searching for a blueprint solution. I will create a second video which is 60-90 seconds long to quickly show what’s possible, so only explaining the what, and not the how 
But I think the short video should be visible directly in the marketplace without clicking on a youtube link. More like the screenshots, so that people simply click a button and can watch a short video without going to youtube When there is not integrated solution for this, the description is like "Short Video: <Youtube Link>, Long Video: <Youtube Link>, and I think if someone only wants to look through what’s on the marketplace this “clicking on a link which opens youtube” is a barrier.
As someone browsing content, I agree having the video on the page is very important. I am burning my savings every minute I spend on a Youtube page load. It wouldn’t be bad to offer a playlist of walkthroughs, with the first video in the playlist the short overview of what can be achieved.
in case of custom animated characters (especially animals) bone quantity would be useful!
“If foliage: wind (y/n)” would be useful for the nature type assets.
Excellent ideas! I have one question, which has gone unanswered, concerning the new Mannequin and how it relates to what can and cannot be submitted to the marketplace. Does EVERYTHING have to be compatible with him? I use Blender and therefore cannot create an asset that uses that exact skeleton as Blender will not export that skeleton properly. I have a project that I was hoping to submit to the marketplace but my animations and skeletons are different. I do have versions of ALL of my animations that are compatible with the new guy but my skeletons/characters are not and therefore have their own set of animations. Is this OK for submission or am I wasting my time? I think it would be unfair to require that all users go out and pay for Maya if they want to submit skeletons/characters to the marketplace, likewise it would also create unwanted restrictions with regards to the type of character that can be submitted.
Hello, posted this in another thread but it’s probably more appropriate here. Would be interested to hear thoughts on this.
Cheers
I’m not sure if I missed it already, but what I’m looking for when checking out blueprints is:
- Which Version it is guaranteed to work / developed and tested in. So: >= 4.7 and such ( A badge or tag on the item in the marketplace browser would be a good first indicator )
- Networked: Not only “supports networking” which I’ve seen sometimes means that it can surely BE networked, but requires a good deal of work. I’d like to know explicitly if it has been developed With networking in.
Based on such queryable settings, I’d also love to see a filtering function which can checkbox Things such as these.
@:
-
Certain problems only arise through the practical use of assets in a realistic scene or level, from bad Collision to bad Pivots, all the way to catching Pack-Incompatibilities due to quality-control differences between packs by the same author (foliage etc).
-
Because of this greater need for more practicality in the vetting process, why not send complimentary packs to a select pool of experienced community members from moderators to modelers for their evaluation? I’d rather read advance reviews about limitations of packs, than have to scrutinize data-heavy-tables supplied by the vendors.
-
Filling out a form is a risky vetting procedure. It risks pushing a heap of red-tape and regulation onto Indie-Modelers & Small-Biz-Owners. And at the end of the day, what forces any of them to comply? Are there looming penalties like forfeiture of revenue for inaccuracies, omissions, deceptive practices etc…?
[/QUOTE]
If anything is sent to “select pool of …”, how is the submitter to know the skill level and speed of learning “of experienced community members…”, many say they are X, when in truth, they are X - Y (where Y > X).
How is the submitter to know the integrity of the “experienced community members”?
Will they be able to be sued, if it’s found they are distributing the “product” without legal authorization?
Will the “experienced community members” be required to sign NDA’s (Non-Disclosure Agreement as well as Non-Distribution Agreement) with Epic, holding Epic harmless and the same NDAs with the submitter?
Bottom line there is a term’s of agreement etc with Epic, so what would there need to be, between Epic, “experienced community members” and the submitter?
How is one going to handle “derivative works” conflicts between what the “community member” has seen and perhaps what they themselves put into the marketplace?
If the “community member” works for a corporation that could use the “product” does the “gratis product” extend to the corporation as well?
While I agree high quality product is in the best interest of all concerned. Just handing the product out to “experienced community members” doesn’t really add that much in my opinion. Unless, those “community members” are specialized, such that they are focusing on one or two areas, such that it’s reasonable to expect they could give all the packages they reviewed the time that they deserve.
Is Epic willing to work with the developer community on methodologies to prevent theft?
I would highly suggest that any handing out of the “product gratis”, be carefully thought through.
Agreed on the Staff Picks as well as the Community Picks. Although at times, when I am looking at “reviews” of equipment, I will read where someone says well I don’t think it does X, when it clearly states that it does do X (i.e. person thinks a monitor doesn’t have tilt, yet it states in the specs that it has 5 to 15 degrees of tilt, lol just read this at Egghead). Which leads to, how about as another poster has stated, that the Bill of Materials state if there is PDF/Text/Http Links for Documentation. If this is done, I would suggest, that the documentation, contain a usage section on how the submitter expects the content to be used (i.e. BluePrints), and the steps that would need to be done, in order to achieve those goals. Now this would be something that Epic as vetting would simplify their life to an extent, they have the roadmap, does the blueprint do it or not?
In terms of sounds/graphics/content, that comes down in a lot of ways to each person’s “pleasure” and is very hard to be empirical about something so subjective. But if we were to look at “sound affects” I would think it would be reasonable to state how long each “sound” is, and is it designed to loop seamlessly (I believe someone already mentioned this concerned FX).
Just my thoughts.
I would also think in terms of “networking” and many other things really, has the blueprint been designed with ways for the end user to be able to extend it?
i.e. simple example, if there is internal debugging setup in the blueprint, are their Boolean switches etc to enable/disable debugging? (lol, yes I’m putting my blueprints together in this fashion for submission, think construction graph where debugging breakpoints just doesn’t exist)
It just seems to me, that submissions can contain a lot more information than what I currently see.
Agreed on the Staff Picks as well as the Community Picks. Although at times, when I am looking at “reviews” of equipment, I will read where someone says well I don’t think it does X, when it clearly states that it does do X (i.e. person thinks a monitor doesn’t have tilt, yet it states in the specs that it has 5 to 15 degrees of tilt, lol just read this at Egghead). Which leads to, how about as another poster has stated, that the Bill of Materials state if there is PDF/Text/Http Links for Documentation. If this is done, I would suggest, that the documentation, contain a usage section on how the submitter expects the content to be used (i.e. BluePrints), and the steps that would need to be done, in order to achieve those goals. Now this would be something that Epic as vetting would simplify their life to an extent, they have the roadmap, does the blueprint do it or not?
In terms of sounds/graphics/content, that comes down in a lot of ways to each person’s “pleasure” and is very hard to be empirical about something so subjective. But if we were to look at “sound affects” I would think it would be reasonable to state how long each “sound” is, and is it designed to loop seamlessly (I believe someone already mentioned this concerned FX).
Just my thoughts.