Part of the problem with setting a price on any marketplace like this one is transparency. A few others have touched on this factor in this thread but it should be mentioned that it is the root cause of the issue at hand. Transparency of the perceived market and what it holds. In a new marketplace, transparency is always a challenge because the market has yet to balance itself out based on only competition. (I should mention that most marketplaces like this one are not transparent. Even older marketplaces.)
When an asset developer places their package on the market they have to determine a price. To determine this price they determine the answers to their own questions. Some of those questions could be:
- How much are others charging for similar assets in this market?
- How many hours did I spend developing this package?
- How many people are actually buying assets in this market?
The third question that I listed is the most important question to be answered. Unfortunately, that information is not available; it is not transparent. Why you might ask… is that the most important question? The reason it’s the most important question deals with sales volume. If I know that a market is very popular, for instance the Steam market, I know that I can charge less for my assets and the overall sales will be worth the effort. I know that in a popular market my asset can sell several copies because it will reach a larger number of consumers. However, if an asset developer thinks the market is not very popular then the asset developer has to balance their prices with the prices set by other developers on the market. This is how a market balances itself out based on a competitive scale. A new market has less balance because there is less competition. A new market is also perceived as a low sales volume market and thus prices are higher.
Therein lies the issue with transparency being unavailable to developers on the market. As a developer myself, I have no means of which to identify how many customers are actually making purchases in this market. If that number is low then transparency will be a bad thing for consumers. Asset developers would be made aware that sales volumes in this market were low so they have to charge more to make up for the lack of volume. If that number of consumers is high then transparency is a good thing for consumers because asset developers would know they could charge less and still attain a profit worthy of the effort spent developing the assets.
Now, I am not taking sides here. I think that the market is new and eventually it will balance itself out. The quickest way a consumer can assist in balancing out that market is to make newer developers feel welcomed. I’m not saying that you have to buy their assets to make them feel welcomed. Simply things like complimenting their work on this forum is one way or just being nice and professional in your critique is another. A few others have said, “Vote with your wallet.” That there is a catch 22 because the market is not transparent. It can be effective or damaging to the time it takes for the market to balance out. If people don’t buy assets because the difference of a couple bucks then the asset developer may assume that their package didn’t sell because there are not enough consumers in this market. They leave and as a result there is one less asset developer and the market doesn’t get competition in order to balance itself out.
I only took a few courses in Business back in my college days so don’t ask me how to fix it but I felt I would just throw a few points out there for discussion.
I did think of one idea, sort of a bargain bin section set apart from the Main marketplace. Cheaper prices, lower cut to Epic, fewer assets required to post in it, nothing in that section of the market can cost over five dollars. Might help to bring in more asset developers and create additional competition in order to balance out the Main market. I don’t know, it’s just an idea.
NOTE TO OP: A game may only cost you 60 bucks but some company had to spend millions of dollars to make it. Sales volume makes it possible for you to get the game for far less then the millions it cost to make. Sales volume directly effects the price of marketed goods.