[=KitatusStudios;430996]
----- The Selling of Features that are already in the engine -----
may at first sound like a nitpicky topic, But please hear me out. I wanted to list the offending assets, But I didn’t want to offend the sellers, So I’ll just give a general list of some things on the Marketplace that already in the engine:
- Pivot Tool (Are you kidding? Just because it’s not common knowledge that you can V / Middle Mouse to move the pivot, Someone is selling ?)
[/]
one is a pet peeve of me as well.
Seriously, should not have been accepted, no excuses.
To add that to that, and I know I have had the discussion with as well, it still annoys the butter off of my bread.
the “PBR Light IES Profiles” pack is just the joke of the marketplace. They are available for FREE!! on the interwebs, and are basically just drag from zipfile > drop into editor > sell on marketplace.
Same goes with the color grading pack from the same author.
Downloaded the free zipfile > drag/drop into editor > sell on marketplace.
I am almost inclined to find any or all content with the same license and just post them on the marketplace for easy cheap cash.
[=KitatusStudios;430996]
----- Messy Blueprints -----
Man, oh man. is the Marketplace’s biggest offender. A lot (About 70%) of marketplace items I’ve purchased have had Blueprints that look like :
Yes. That is from the famous “SnapUI”, Yet nothing was done about it. Straight up around 70% of assets I have purchased have Graphs that look like . That’s no exaggeration either. If you need proof, I can privately message all the dirty graphs from assets I own from the Marketplace.
[/]
should not be allowed, in any case.
[=;431209]
Hi Kitatus,
I wanted to reach out to you regarding your concerns with the Marketplace:
-
If a submission provides value for our customers, we will accept any assets regardless whether they’ve been done before . The Marketplace may have similar instances of certain props, blueprints, etc. to choose from, but all of them have their own art style and value to add to the Marketplace.
-
All of the packs on the Marketplace provide their own flavor to offer and may be a better fit for someone than an internal function. In addition, we make sure that these packs do also bring more to the table then just the main . We accept simple assets so that people who have a specific, but common mechanic can have it already done for them
-
We looked at pack and we found the section of blueprint you showed here. While it is messy, it is understandable and functions as intended. We will give him the feedback to clean up, however, as a general rule for blueprints we can’t guarantee that it will be aesthetically clean but we do test to make sure the blueprints function and nothing is obfuscated
If you have any further questions or concerns, please reach out to or myself through pm.
Thank you,
[/]
I highly agree with the others that is not a satisfactory reply. At all.
There should also be some common decency, not allowing packs like the IES profiles, color grading pack, the pivot mover, or blueprints/shaders/cascade setups that are a total mess.
Not to mention environment packs that use a scalar for roughness, or ignore roughness at all.
It was promised to us that each environment/prop pack would need to mention if it has proper roughness maps setup, because just saying its “PBR” doesnt mean it is.
That was months ago, and there are still packs that do not state .
[=;431366]
I wanted to put little pack to accompany SuperGrid, but realized that release process could take up to 45 days and just got real sad. When I was working on big pack such time was okay, but when you got something cool and just want to release it - waiting for 45 days is a bummer. And it may take up much more due to current state of the Marketplace.
[/]
I agree, the time between accepting the package and publishing it on the marketplace should be faster, way faster.
I know in time it might, but as said, a small package could be up in mere days, not months.
Let alone having to wait another 45 days or more before the first payment is made.
[=;431366]
I don’t want to be that guy, but in Unity AS people get angry after 10 days of waiting for approval(approval = release). Of course sometimes you can wait for 10 days just to be said that your title is incorrect or something and they don’t help at all with releasing, just reject/approve, but still…
[/]
There are instances where the pack gets published the same day on their marketplace, but their level of quality is much lower than Epic’s.
that said… looking at that image kitatus posted…
[=crowl;432720]
I’d like to back up and reiterate that we are working to dramatically improve the experience for everyone using the Marketplace.
We’re with you on the seller portal - it can’t get here fast enough! We’re pushing to release it as soon as humanly possible.
[/]
May I direct your attention to: Marketplace Overhaul feedback - Marketplace - Epic Developer Community Forums
[=;432746]
T
A private forum section for sellers. Constant communication in that section. is where you can answer these kind of questions I asked above. Myself and others are asking nicely, PLEASE.
[/]
, a lot of many times.
[=Joviex;432839]
Honestly the slack is perfect for that, and already has a marketplace channel.
[/]
Even though I like slack, I dont agree at all.
should be handled as close to epic as possible.
[=tyoc213;435393]
Dont know if have been discussed, but mark assets as compatible with only certain versions is “rare” because some of them are only assets with no deprecated blueprints or C++… so…
I think there should be inside the machine that has an automatic " try to update to new engine" or some like that, no need to flag simple assets as incompatible.
[/]
I wonder how hard it would be to flag content without blueprints to work on any version of the engine, and let them get auto accepted.
__
Meh, I dont like making long posts, let alone give a rather negative opinion on things.
I dont like to step on toes.
Edit:
On another note, I recently had to send information to the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, and they asked me why I didnt submit the sellers report for November.
Can you please add the date of money transfer (even an estimate would be nice) to the Seller Report?
That would result in a lot less hassle 
