Is $35 for 25 2048 ground materials a good price?

Are the textures contained in each material ones you created yourself from your photographs and/or created by hand? or are they from an images you downloaded off of the internet? Do you have written authorization to sell those textures from the owner who created them if you have downloaded them?

Also what resolution are the textures? Are they all 2048x2048? Do you have any other sample images of the materials applied to objects? What are the other 24 kinds of materials we aren’t able to preview?

All of the things I mentioned are what I would want to ask before I can say if it is a good deal or not. :slight_smile:

Tomorrow I will post more pictures. They are all 2048x2048. The picture of the landscape was 3 or 4 of the textures blended together. I"ll post most or all individually. I took every photo used to create the textures and bought the appropriate license for the software I used to be able to sell them.

Fair price. To make it really competitive I think you should put some macro variation into the materials like the grass material in the UE4 example content.

sounds fair to me, would buy tomorrow

here are just a few materials.

There are actually 26 in this pack, this is all of them on spheres.

This one could possibly be improved, but it isnt bad if you blend in another material in some spots.

I have made tessellated materials for drag an drop using use in UE4 using the diffuse, normal, ambient occlusion, and displacement. The roughness is .7 and tessellation multiplier is 1.
Should I make second set of materials using the specular maps or just have them in the textures folder with the unused bump map in case someone wants to use them? I was also considering also making a st with the specular as diffuse and some look kind of neat like that.

In my opinion, they seem significantly repetitive, and in the last picture you can see the texture isn’t purely seamless. You may want to work on these a bit more. Other than that, you have a good amount of variety.

For me, the quality would not be ok for that price. Seamless/repeat.

They look pretty decent, could be improved a lot to reduce repetitiveness and the material setups looks a bit sub-par.

One thing to keep in mind however, is that the kind of people who purchase art assets are probably not the people that are very experienced with materials either.
Plugging them into the respective slots could be easily done, but I think a lot of your potential customers will have trouble setting them up to be used with a landscape material.
And unless you use any of the various techniques available for getting more textures into each 2d sheet, you’ll get stuck at the 2D sheet limitation of SM5.

I think if you improved some of them a bit so that they’re not so repetitive (example; the last one get a grid pattern due to too drastic variations in hue at the edges) and built a proper landscape shader with layers for each texture, the price would be fine for selling in marketplace.

I will try to improve most of the more repetitive ones.
The last one is the only one that bad, I probably shouldn’t have put it in the pack like that. I didn’t realize it was that bad until I put it on a bsp yesterday.
I was planning on making a landscape material to include.
I’ll look up some techniques for getting past the SM5 limitation.
I am still fairly new to UE4 and have not been using it as much as I’d like to, and very new to making materials.

You should crank up the quality if you want to use this price
For me it looks like photo to normal with basic offset painting without any other information.

Improvements I suggest:

  • Paint roughness map based on different objects in texture and normal map
  • Break the repetition. Simple offset painting is not enough for good textures

For the ones shown, they look incredibly repetitive. Consider for a moment the competition you have, GameTextures, Quixel Suite etc have very highly-polished materials all PBR ready and are very adjustable.

Trying not to be too harsh but my critiques are that they are way too blurry (most look like they’ve been up-scaled just to get to 2048 resolution), very obvious tiling artefacts, and some also seem to have pre-baked shadows and/or light and dark spots in the diffuse map (big no no!). I’m assuming a lot of these have been generated from Photos found either online or pieced together from source art in Photoshop? While that can work for small things that you rarely notice, and what I’d call “filler art”, for centerpiece textures that you’re trying to sell (and for $35!) that’s not something you can get away with.

There is often little you can do without tiling (although the seams in yours are very apparent in some cases), you may want to consider selling Material sets rather than just textures. Work on your shaders a bit more so that they can be used in a variety of ways, and not just as source-art textures for people to make better materials with. Layering differently-scaled materials on top of one another, vertex-paint support for details etc are all viable options. Right now though, there are much more superior solutions already out there which are very flexible (and cheap!).

Thanks for the replies and suggestions! Asking family and friends what they think of them, if the are too repetitive, and if they are good enough to sell never works as the only reply I would get is that they are great, even the crappy ones that I tried to say there is no way someone would buy it like that.

I’ll most likely try some things like making materials with vertex paint support and layering different scaled materials.

The ones that are blurry are for the most part from having shaky hands I think. I will be retaking most of(if not all) my pictures and making sure the ones I use aren’t blurry at all.

I will probably end up selling 15 to 20 for $10 instead of the 25 or 26 for $35.

In my opinion photo sourced textures does not make an ideal material.

The main problem is because it’s photo sourced it already contains lighting information that tends to interact with lighting and shadow solutions in an unpredictable manner.

I’ll have to be honest and say I would not buy any kind of material based on photo sourcing, at any price, as like where some of this stuff comes from have a CG textures account.

Photo-sourced Textures are okay, when you take The Photo with artificial light from all directions to have no Shadow Informations in the Photo/Texture. Otherwise I agree that Shodows on the Texture will cause minor Problems but shouldn’t be to bad in my experience.

The Textures in this pack on the otherhand are just to repetetive on every single One I have seen so far, I would rather do them myself in this case instead of buying them for 35$. You should really look over every one of them again and when you see the texture in a rather smaller space 2x2 and you can cleary see the repetetive pattern, that you should redo them. Simple remove the very obvious parts and patterns to create smooth and seamless pattern where nothing really sticks out. A Single Rock in a GroundTexture can “Destroy” the whole look of it when It is repeated all the Time. I would then rather have 1 Ground and 1 Rock/Ground Texture which I would paint randomly over the Level, Instead of having them both in 1 Texture.

The best way to take exterior photos for textures is when it is overcast. You get uniform shadows which means less editing to get a good result. You can eliminate the shadows in those photos as well in photoshop or gimp, then do color adjustment, combine several takes of the same surface and then make them tilable with a plugin like PixPlant.

It’s all good but one thing. If you really want to make photos tileable, you have to do it manually. Especially with more complex source material, like grass mixed with earth or stones.

Also general tip. If you are using photoshop, good way to get rid of harash lighting is to select it using Color Range and use Fill with Content-Aware option. It’s good for removing very dark shadow and very bright reflections.

Granted but why buy a 30 dollar material and texture package when you have to do any additional work to get it to look good?

For example

For the same $30 you can get 200 textures that includes all the sub materials and not just a single layer.

If you want to sell something please at least take a look around.

That was meant for Jay so that he can get his textures to a better quality before he sells them.

Of course and I’m just saying. I’m not trying to be nasty here just stating the reality.

Just check the submissions

Awesome 30 piece materials package that if you click on the screenie it’s going to be a freebie.

So to answer the original question “Is this a fair price?” then in my opinion no it’s not.

$35 is too much in my opinion considering the lack of variation and quality based on the screenshots - With what you’ve shown i would say $15 range

Also keep in mind that making your price higher will most likely result in selling less, don’t think that making your price higher will guarantee making more money.

One of my first packs on the marketplace was a 32 texture pack with more variation which included Diffuse, Normal, Gloss and AO as well as a basic material. My price was $20.

I would recommend improving the quality and variation of your textures and make sure that all of them are completely seamless.