ok, right.
not quite. but you did say that going below $75 (for your pack that contains 5 maps, which you’ve spend 10+ hours on each) would be funny (as in, not profitable and/or a joke). but again wouldn’t be exactly true if you were to sell 100 copies of your pack. or 1000 copies.
the point here is that the marketplace stuff is generic material
the marketplace is not like ordering a website to a design company. the marketplace is like going into themeforest and buying a website template (that anyone else can also buy)
is $30 bucks the price a web design company would charge for a website design? of course not. yet you can buy a website theme for $30. it won’t be custom-tailored and unique and will need customization, just like the UE4 marketplace content.
I agree with you that there needs to be a lower limit.
but getting back to original example I would also say that $150 for the photorealistic landscapes pack is too much. not because I don’t value the effort put into it, but because people pay for 4 landscapes out of which most likely only ever use 1.
if I could buy 1 for the equivalent of $37.50 I would actually think about it. if the shader was doing interesting things (which isn’t) then for learning purposes.
but mainly I would be interested because of the included textures. though one is really sketchy: it says it’s 18 made up of diff+normal. is that 9+9=18 or 18 of each? what really is ‘high quality’ if I can’t judge by seeing some texture flats? by my own standards I’d already doubt it to be ‘high quality’ and claim it to be ‘photorealistic’ if Spec/Gloss/Roughness maps are not included, or claim that it ‘will be elegible for next-gen games’ when all 6 screenshots are aerial views and none shows any ground closeup detail
bottom line, and repeating myself: we need more material to judge if things are worth our money or not