I think you have that in reverse. It costs nothing to uphold the existing law, the only thing that will cost is if someone decides they want to file a lawsuit in which case they will lose both time and money when it is inevitably thrown out. And that’s assuming a lawyer will even take up the case.
More video reviewers certainly could help to, but those that would actually have time to review everything usually only appear after the market is big enough. After all, they make money when they get views and if there isn’t a viable marketplace then reviews of said marketplace won’t be viable either. Same thing with written review sites. In general I think the easiest path to making both the publishers and customers more happy than they are currently is to shore up the refund policy for the publishers but really get after the publishers and require their descriptions/screens/videos/demos not be confusing and accurately portray their product before the customer buys it. As far as moderators goes if you guys have time to volunteer to help then great, but in all honesty if Epic isn’t willing to put some money into the marketplace in terms of web developers and reviewers then I don’t have much hope. After all, are they going to share in a portion of the 30% or compensate you guys in some way? If you meant they agreed to pay you guys, then I misunderstood and that is certainly fair.
I’m not usually a fan of saying company X is better than company Y. The companies will always act in their best interest not yours, sometimes like on these marketplaces there is a win/win but eventually there is some divergence and they are always going to take care of themselves and their shareholders first. I will say though vetting systems are not as easy as on the outside as they seem. The marketplace website doesn’t even have some basic features in it yet and I would think those and a publisher portal would be a priority first.
If Epic can’t put things together someone will end up building a parallel marketplace just like happened to Unity in first years of Asset Store.
I’m sure if Epic fails to inspire confidence the gumroad’s, itch.io’s of the world will become defacto hosts or perhaps something new. However, when something becomes an unofficial place it by default loses a number of potential customers that don’t know it exists, a first party would always be ideal both because it’s official and it can have a tab directly in the engine. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to this, it’s better sales wise for everybody, unless Epic doesn’t respond or invest in the marketplace at all.
I don’t know of any content pack that doesn’t integrate into existing projects. Might be some rare cases with code/BP based packs. But generally it’s just a matter of adding the pack folder to the content folder.
The reviews would be mainly targeting the functionality, optimization, quality etc.
There are sellers who do anything to prevent their work being reviewed as they already know what kind of work they have put out. So I doubt that’d be something every seller would agree on. But if this is something enforced by Epic that’d be better. Still, since every moderator has a different skill level in different field of work this wouldn’t work as expected. Review on one pack can be very different if done by 2 separate people, and that’s not fair for the seller.
Maybe it’s better to have reviews in the way of reviewer writing his concerns and then having the seller response to them, in that case if there are mistakes done by the reviewer the seller gets a to point them out without losing all the potential buyers. That’d be a text review in form of conversation. Video reviews are always one way and people don’t check back after watching it. The seller doesn’t get to say a word if there was a mistake on the reviewer’s part.
To me the best information is webgl demo > video review > advertising video > screens > text. That being said a well done version of any combination of these can do the job but the more is better. If curation of the store is a priority then part of the curation would be to make sure the items do not convey a false sense of the product whatever the medium is being used.
Casual 3rd party reviewers are fine, but generally only really cover what they are interested in and reputation does matter which is something a casual reviewer struggles with. Usually the professional reviewers with a known reputation is best and they can certainly grow out of being casual to being professional but that is usually supported with dollars from views, but also dollars from affiliate marketing, and a good voucher system so that the well known reviewer doesn’t have the cost of all these packs. Epic is struggling at the basics, so I don’t see an affiliate traffic system as something that is coming anytime in the next few years.
Moderators being paid with credit is fine, but generally cash is better. With how small the marketplace is currently moderators might do, but it won’t scale. Realistically, they should hire more in-house staff. While I’m sure you are good hearted, any 3rd party does open it up for some abuse.
This is not true at all IMO. All that is required is for the reviewer to state their experience level from the onset. Marketplace assets are bought by a range of skill-levelled individuals, so having reviews done by people new to the experience has it’s own value, as long as it is clear from the beginning of the review that the person is likely missing large sections in their skills, and so any comments they make should take that into account.
To say that you need someone with years of professional experience is kinda like saying game reviews are useless unless the person you are taking the review from is a proven champion at that game genre.
Reviews should always be taken as what they are - an opinion of the content being reviewed through the filter of the reviewer, including their bias.
Im in the middle of the submitting process and the way how i did my preview page, is just open like 10 other existing marketplace products and made mine in a same way, now when i read the discussion , i realised how much basically empty words i put into the description. What comes to video preview, which in required only for code based submission, epic guidelines is quite clear, they literally encourage you to post marketing style video demonstration, which i though fine until read this topic, maybe the video should be mandatory for art assets as well, its not that hard, to flight thru level with assets put on the ground or whatever.
edit:
What comes to that video review discussion, the idea sounds bad and flawed in so many ways, i dont think there are even a value to bring it up. What is really required, is review on the marketplace page showcase the fact who really own asset and who doesn’t.
I’m just going to point this out because I’ve yet to see anyone mention it.
Not every seller lives in the USA or even on the north American continent.
Returns laws change per state and per country and even per trade union, In the UK for example returns are allowed for software within 15 days of sale so long as the software has not been opened.
Epic Games may well be based in North Carolina but international companies do still need to follow regional laws, if this weren’t the case then companies such as Google, Starbucks and Apple wouldn’t have tax offices based in Europe.
On this note, perhaps it is best for sellers to do some research on what is involved in international trading.
The concept that because Epic are based in the US does not directly mean those buyers must abide by US law as that is not how international trading works. @Maximum-Dev @SE_JonF
While I agree that refunds need to be regulated better in terms of reasons, you do need to look into the ins and outs of international trading a little more.
The above points are why digital distributors like Steam are required to provide refunds for games, though limited to 2 hours of usage and within x number of days from sale.
This is what they tell the press.
Actually they stop selling because they didn’t agree to the laws , which requires ANY electronics or software manufacturer to setup a local factory in ‘Zona Franca de Manaus’, generating jobs for the local echosystem. Nintendo wanted to bring software from abroad instead, so our government said they’d have to pay 60% tax since they will not setup a factory and won’t translate products neither obey our consumer’s code… Then Nintendo left.
Microsoft and Sony did, this is why games for PS4 and XOne are well supported and with translated voiceovers for portuguese.
And the refund policy, is OUR policy, not Japan’s or America’s.
The Eula says in case of lawsuit the laws of X is the tribunal of choice; however I am not an US citizen and company must obey my local trade laws or the regulatory organs shall interfere. It has happened, more than once… and at the end the consumer wins.
The thing is this, even Steam recently was put against the wall by our government because Valve wasn’t paying tax for the products sold even though are just digital sales.
Valve was forced to agree paying taxes and gate all sales to a local digital payment service called “Pague Seguro” from where taxes are automatically deduced for each game sold. And Valve did, because they want to sell…
Even the all mighty Apple have to obey local regulations, you still insist on this; Epic is very small to do anything against such regulations, the only way to avoid it is to close the store and sell for US citizens only. Are you sure that’s worth it? I think not, most UE4 users are from EU and Asia.
I’m personally not against refunds as long as the reason behind it is legit. Still I wouldn’t have any care about a refund even if the refund was based on a lie as long as I could be sure after refund is processed the user wouldn’t be able to use the content. Steam example could be applied only if like steam, the user was forced to own the content in order to be able to use it. Sure not all games on steam become unplayable after they are refunded (if you copy the content somewhere else and then use a crack) but that’s an off-road discussion.
Edit: One is even if 1 out of 20 pieces in a package are really corrupt, the refund is still processed and the user gets to use the other 19 pieces totally for free. That’s a big problem.
Oh, Don’t get me wrong, I agree with that point, it’s the argument that refunds are entirely seller discretion that I had problem with as laws surrounding that vary wildly.
You’re saying that as if it was something that mattered.
As an illustration of my argument:
Which would you rather have?
- three sales in a week
- eight sales in a week and four refunds
Regarding Wal-Mart refunds, the 90 days in the US come from credit card posting policies. Companies don’t get their money until 90 days after the transaction. During that time, a consumer can very easily charge back a purchase to their credit card company, and the seller won’t get the money. It’s much cheaper for them to take the TV back and a credit on their own.
They have to do that because they have a “locus” in those countries, which generally means they have some actual employee.
If a company is based in state X, has their web hosting and credit card servicing set up in state X, and have no employees elsewhere, they don’t actually have to follow any laws or regulations from anywhere else.
Think about it: If they “broke” the laws or regulation, what would the enforcement mechanism be? Country Y invades state X to enforce their consumer purchase laws? The most country Y can do at that point is order their own internet providers to filter out state X, which some countries actually do. Generally, to their own loss.
This is your personal assumptions and nothing measured based on any data from UE4 Marketplace. There is no guarantee you wouldn’t have 6 refunds on 8 sales.
The refund rate I suggest is actually a lot higher than the typical outcome for digital marketplaces. (For physical goods, the amount of refunds is much, much, lower.)
If UE4 marketplace followed typical digital goods retail (which is something I do for a living) we’d have less than 1 refund per 10 sales, and there would be significantly more growth than refunds based on the “no risk” policy.
Your point is factual – the UE4 marketplace is a little bit unique, as is every other marketplace. It’s possible the UE4 buyer community is way fuller of a-holes and charlatans than any other community.
The good news is, EPIC should have pretty good insight into that data across all sellers, and could easily apply whatever controls are necessary to clamp down on that.
In general, it’s been my experience that those who create things, and make buying a really easy and happy experience, make lots of money, whereas those who create things, and worry more about the few thieves than the many buyers, end up being disappointed with the outcome.
@jwatte that is what I was trying to say.
Although ppl do pirate things, I’ve been selling online since Steve Jobs created the app store and I keep easy in hand for everyone to have access to my personal email and contact me directly. I never had to refund anyone, ever. If someone have an, they email me and I do what I can to help and fix the problem. Nobody asked a refund from me this far, in Unity store neither in Epic’s Marketplace… Trying to fight the consumer is wrong and you only hurt yourself, it’s what I try to say.
This is what some people have been suggesting since page 1 but the problem I see with that is you are describing the “You’d be able to get your money back at any point for any reason and keep using the content” would be the one option on the UE4 marketplace that makes buying easier and happier experience. Not the 24/7 support, walkthrough, bug fixes and updates which are currently provided by every one of us.
Additionally, if purchase rates go up based on just that statement then it’s only a matter of time before almost everyone get’s their money back. Sellers do not live with high purchase rates. They live with how much of it they get to keep in their pocket. It’s a trade and reverting the trade is never an option unless both sides are happy with it.
Why do you keep assuming that everybody in the world is a scumbag?
Your entire attack on refund policies is based on assuming that everyone is just waiting to stick it to you.
Most people, and by that I mean way more than 90%, are quite honest.
Many of those who really want to stick it to you are probably already downloading the assets from elsewhere.
And they’re just not that many.
And, at the same time, you say that you don’t want to give buyers a consistent experience by naming your assets according to the convention.
I’ve seen that pattern before. It doesn’t lead to successful business in my experience.
Right, it’s baffling. My very first post in this thread asked the exact same question. No-one has actually given an answer with any logic behind it. But apparently merely questioning such assumptions or the lack of any obvious evidence constitutes hating on sellers. Even if you’re a seller yourself…
I do not. The statistics since the first days of marketplace until the refund policy got tighter prove that not only the sales weren’t that high but the refunds were so much higher than the normal rate. An example of that which is already discussed in this thread is the refund rate on packages by SE_JonF. And this high refund rate was one of the reasons the refund policy got updated to what it is today.
Unfortunately, pirates prefer to buy from original place and then get a refund instead of downloading from torrent and Chinese sites and the reason for that is they get the most up to date version of the content. If they see not a single block on their way getting the money back there is no reason downloading from elsewhere. And that’s why refund rates were so high in the early days. And would repeat again if the policy change back to what it was.
Any casual game developer knows Grass_01_N means grass 01 normal map. So Tex_Grass_01_N is redundancy. Renaming Grass_01_Inst to MI_Grass_01_Inst is redundancy. Reducing redundancy is what helps them which is what I’ve done.