I’m honestly not used to having a near real time discussion on these forums, so thank you for your patience with my edits/replies haha, I usually edit something multiple times as you can see as I sometimes have mistakes in the initial post that I go over to correct, hence my inclusion of February of 2021 as a potential date for me to update my marketplace guide again.
I’m still trying to figure out the part though where you see the “Replicated Volume based gravity system” is a segway for your product if your product is not replicated? Even forgetting the oversight about using the default character. Nonetheless there are already replicated volume based gravity systems on the marketplace that have been on there for quite a while now I think even over a year, so I would have removed it from the list already if that had actually been the intention of my suggestion.
Like I said in my first post, I only focused on the “volume based gravity system”. You could count that as someone just saying something to say something. I just read through your post and was like “hmmmmmm”. I never made replication an option on any of my assets. I neither have the time nor the experience to do it.
But, there is a more fundamental problem in theory of having this replicated. What exactly would be replicated?
The areas themselves don’t do anything, they just exist as a volume. Check a box and make sure that the area is everywhere the same? There is nothing more to it I think.
The gravity direction comes from an finder actor component that just calculates from a given World Location a Gravity Direction. What even would be replicated here? The result value of the direction? That can be stored inside the actor itself and would probably be even cheaper than to replicate the finder. The finder component would only need to be available on the local character for instance.
But regardless of that, I personally don’t get attracted by replication being available on an asset. I used some assets on the marketplace that, for whatever reason, needed me to learn all the multiplayer related stuff before I can use it in Singleplayer. It just consumes your time. So I am just focusing on the stuff that I can do the best, even if it gives me less sales. (But it also gives me less support requests to MAYBE answer correctly)
That’s some wall of text there (like reading silicon valley privacy t&c :p). So I didn’t get through it all. But hey here’s my own wall. As I did pick up on some points like Plug and Play, that I’d like to support as well. So fwiw, here my wishlist of places I’d like to see the marketplace go…
What blueprints would you like to see added to the engine?
What is currently not possible with blueprint alone?
Also, I’m curious to know, for certain solutions such as facebook/twitter/etc integration, as well as MMO functionality, would you accept a plugin with a pay-per-month model (as in a monthly subscription) if you would need that functionality for your project or game?
I no longer purchase blueprints/code plugins not multiplayer ready. All blueprints/code plugins should support multiplayer in my opinion. So I want to see remakes of many packages that do not support multiplayer, support multiplayer.
There’s nothing quite like converting packs that have 1000’s of variables.
Or nested functions using BP Types that don’t / can’t even replicate at all.
(Had some really joyous times converting a few Melee Combat Systems). :mad:
Having a way to eliminate NON-Multiplayer packs in a Marketplace search would help.
Even if you type Multiplayer into the search box, you still can’t sort by highest-rated atm.
I would love to see an editor plugin which can resize all images (change compression) from a certain map level, just give it a number like 2 which will double the size of all textures, 0.5 will half them, etc.
This comes really handy once we’ve already optimized our textures but we want to tweak them and squeeze every ounce of performance
Particularly, I would LOVE to see a third person female locomotion pack where the character isn’t in a “Relaxed” state. Call it Survival Horror Locomotion Female, or Action Adventure Locomotion female. Basically I am looking for locomotion animations like you would find in the New Tomb Raider, or Resident Evil 2/3 Remakes, or other “tense” titles. The character should NOT look like she is strolling down the sidewalk…lol. 8 way walking, crouching & jogging with idles and turns would be enough. Maybe a sprint too.
A male version of the above would be nice as well.
So yeah, survival horror animation packs is what I am looking for. Would be nice to get “weighty” gun locomotion like Resident evil 2/3 Remake but maybe that is asking too much.
Other than that some other things that are sorely missing.
Sorceress pack with grounded (as in not flying) 8 way locomotion. Needs a basic attack animation that can be used while moving. (Character skills has something close to this but I was hoping someone would make something a bit flashier.
Vampire Packs with feeding (also grounded and not flying)
I’d like to see a more transparent and responsive Review team. Not just an anonymous Reviewer rejecting projects with “not enough content” or “not high quality” emails. That’s just not good enough for all the work we invest. Also, and most importantly… an APPEAL submission so that new pair of eyes can check the Reviewer’s decision.
Yes. I have the same experience as well. It got rejected for twice but I have no clue on why?
I was so frustrated by that and don’t want to continue further. So, I shared my experience on Unreal Slackers & it seems like this is quite common. Some of the creators there asked me to send an email.
Thankfully, they reconsidered it & send me some real reasons on why it got rejected. Honestly speaking, some of those non-technical reasons are point-less.
It was a RVT based grass system & the whole point of the project is to provide some material code & some management tools.
It said that, I needed to update 30+ assets in order to make it approve. So, I had to include some noise textures & some other stuff which doesn’t provide any value for the users.
BTW: This grass project is well reviewed by the users after the release.
Recently, I checked some of other grass projects & most of them have random assets just to bypass the gateway check.
Basically, this is just a waste for both creators & buyers. I am new to the Unreal Engine community & I was surprised by this behavior since Epic is already in a war on Marketplaces.
Hope Epic would revise the marketplace guidelines & remove these sense-less gateway checks.
Yeah, they definitely need to check that area of concern. It’s too vital for their income and power for them to trust a small group of Reviewers. An independent APPEAL BOARD is needed, just like in the iOS App Store.
Believe me, if it were’t for that Appeal Board in iOS, probably 50% of my Apps wouldn’t had be published. Many Reviewers simply didn’t want my Apps, YET a Higher power turn them down. So they had no choice (or to lose they’re jobs). So yes, it’s huge important aspect of a Fair & Democratic Marketplace.
Also, would love to see SUBSCRIPTIONS for assets. Apps have it, so why not Assets? I mean, it’s a crucial way to support a Designer by giving them a STABLE INCOME. Not just giving away your designs for 20 / 50 bucks forever. That’s not sustainable at all.
I think subscriptions would fix that issue. It won’t matter if a Studio or an Indie Dev purchases your Asset, they’ll both have to pay a constant fee in order to keep using them, and that’s the whole point.
EPIC would need to develop a system (Gateway) that controls expiration dates of subscribed assets so that Game Devs are allowed to use them or not.
This will benefit all : The Game Developer, The Artist and The Platform.
A package of sci-fi elevator models with all blueprint functions including physics. Adding damaged elevator functions would be a good thing to… slowdowns, particle effects when it breaks or is already broken and so on.
Elevators packages currently on sale on the marketplace don’t come with sci-fi models.
Also supporting round elevators would be good.
And the package should feature interactive sci-fi style panels showing the current floor, target floor, maybe current speed and other options.
The package should either come with some ready to use sci-fi style elevator models or modular pieces to assemble the models or both.
Any blueprint code should be clean and easy to extend for added functions, and it should be easy to anyway add custom made elevator models of any size by the user. It should support any number of floors and distance between floors must not be a fixed value, allowing for floors at different heights.
And the price shouldn’t be higher than the average elevator blueprint packages on the marketplace which is in the $50 range.
Developers above thinking that a subscription based model to sell assets on the marketplace would be a good thing to do… just look at the hatred for Autodesk and Adobe subscription models all over the 'net… Everyone with a grain of salt is trying to use other products that don’t have any subscription stuff.
You can’t expect small software houses and indie developers above all to keep paying subscriptions monthly for everything.
The end result is just more people quitting the business or limiting the number of purchases, products used to the bare minimum.
Rich people and big businesses can afford wasting money until they go bankrupt or disappear getting bought by bigger companies … but small and very small businesses and solo developers just can’t.
I bought more than 1000 products on the UE4 marketplace in the last 5 years … do anyone seriously think that even if it was just a $1/month for each product either me or anyone else would be paying $1000/month to be allowed to keep using the assets and get updates? Seriously ?
And even medium and big software houses buying anything on the marketplace wouldn’t enjoy having to pay a lot of money monthly for each employee using the assets.
I don’t see either UE4 Marketplace nor Unity Asset Store as being used by so many medium and large software houses which have their own workforce they pay for creating models and code anyway.
So a subscription based model to mantain bought assets usable would just fail badly and propably cause the whole shop to collapse instead of selling more and making more money for eveyrone involved.
With the subscription models many in order to afford using a product would just pay for a single month when they need it the most. And that’s it. And trying to force a 12-months or 6-months subscription would make things even worse business wise.
Yes subscription model pioneer companies managers keep telling the world that they make more money each year but if that was true then why just for example Autodesk started releasing their software at a cheap Indie license price for poor indie developers after the free Blender got funding from so many software houses and it got a lot better and able to compete with their expensive products? Yep…