As a further note: the publisher price must be frozen to the publisher price at time of initial casual purchase (or lower) so that if the creator later raises the publisher price the purchaser only pays the publisher price he/she was initially quoted (when they paid they casual price). If the creator/seller later decides to lower the price this will incentivize the publisher to use their asset in the final product and incentivize more aspiring publishers to buy their asset. Publisher price will have no impact on casual developer purchasing decisions.
Another note: the lower casual price cannot be used as a way to preview and copy content. If a publisher is able to purchase an asset at the casual price then inspect/copy then delete it and use an imitation in their published product then the content creator is being ripped off. I don’t have a perfect way of solving this but it seems solvable.
Another note: the real balance between buyer and seller is maintained by copyright. In this case, the strength of copyright is determined by how willing Epic is to allow a seller with a similar product on the marketplace. I would argue their current “willingness” is too low giving sellers too much monopoly power particularly if a creator/seller is the first to market with an asset. If these restrictions were loosened the prices would drop.