The same way we would be able to thoroughly test it if we just played any game that used the asset…
Because I saw a report from a buyer that a pricey asset is not well implemented and has many problems. The real problem here is: he had to buy it to finally know it is not worth it, and it is not overall good. Their video demonstrations will never show all possible problems we can find by testing ourselves, and it doesnt need to be bug free, just need to be good enough to we think the price is fair.
Also, now that he bought the asset, he can create a simple project, compile and release it as a free test demo.exe of the asset, the same way he would release a normal game, right? Just that, instead of an end user-developer doing it, the asset creator would provide it.
They should compile and package it at least for windows, as linux users (me) may be able to run it thru Wine if it is a very simple demo.exe that has only basic requirements. And everything that is not related to coding like: models, sounds, music, voices, textures etc, all artistic things could not be in the executable demo if they prefer.
Of course not all assets needs this (like sounds only asset), but everything that has some kind of coding should have an executable demo available, and that should be part of the search criteria when we search assets like: HAS_EXECUTABLE_DEMO.
The problem on just pointing us to some game already using the asset, is that we may have to pay for it too, or it may not be easily runnable on linux by having many other requirements (as most ppl use windows), or may be it is a huge download etc.
I read refundings can be problematic: Absolutely disgusted by Marketplace refund policy, so I dont think it is a good argument to say we should ask a refund…
I dont know if there is other possible problems about releasing a playable demo.exe than the artistic content tho, as it will end up being a compiled binary only with basic/test/free art only. Also, what I think we should be able to test is if the advertised mechanics are good and reliable, not the sounds and graphics that we can already confirm on any screenshot or video, but the core coded functionality.
I am still not sure about this idea tho, but it also still doesnt feel good to buy things “blindly” (half blindly at least). This could also be one of the reasons I see things released on 2015 that very little ppl bought. So, providing a demo.exe could bump up all sellings!
Of course, a long demo video with several apparently proper tests could be an alternative, but I think it will not suffice for many ppl that are more/very picky (like me).
your thoughts?