What do I have to do to get a proper reply from?

[=;693688]
Since some of you asked for pictures and details about our submissions here you go:

First was a FREE camping asset pack:

High quality set which contains 9 camping tents, 5 camping stools, 4 sleepingbags (packed version also), cooking equipment and fireplaces with animated textures, wood piles, wood logs, small stones, various foods.

PBR: Yes
Realistic props scale: Yes
Vertex Count: 1462 to 66396
LODs: 2-4
Textures quality: HD
Number of Blueprints: 7
Number of Meshes: 43
Numbers of Materials: 44
Number of Textures: 85
Intented Platforms: Desktop / Mobile
Tested Platforms: Desktop

Please compare the set with this: Low Poly Survival Props Pack in Props - UE Marketplace
which is a valid UE Marketplace submission and judge for yourself!
The best part about our pack is that it was meant to be free for all people out there creating survival games


The next was an Arcade Set with animated screens and sounds attached.

Here is a showcase video for it:

PBR: Yes
Realistic props scale: Yes
Vertex Count: Arcade 6850 Tris, Airhockey 3766, Pooltable 2894.
LODs: 3
Textures quality: HD
Number of Blueprints: 10
Number of Meshes: 36
Numbers of Materials: 95
Number of Textures: 184
Number of Sound Fx: 6
Intented Platforms: Desktop / Mobile
Tested Platforms: Desktop

We also submitted an Industrial Machine set (none are currently existing on the marketplace) and a Construction Crane (which comes up to 100k Tris but is optimized for UE4 and does not make your project lag like hell).

So all 4 packs got rejected with the same answer from.
[/]

No offense but the quality of these are very low i can see stretching of the UVW’s and the textures used look to be like 512x512, if you fix these two issues you mite have better luck, the lower poly pack doesn’t contain issues with ether of these problems yours does.

[=OverRated_AU;693702]
No offense but the quality of these are very low i can see stretching of the UVW’s and the textures used look to be like 512x512, if you fix these two issues you mite have better luck, the lower poly pack doesn’t contain issues with ether of these problems yours does.
[/]

So you are telling me that the UVW streching on those tiny rocks make the whole pack ****?
Did you look at the rest? Since the rocks are like the most minor part of the pack.

Allright, personal thoughts about the shots shown.

Yea, the rocks on the firepit could use a little bit of re-uving and perhaps a texture change, would be easy to do. (and easy to mention)
Some of the non-burned wood seems a bit stretched, also something easily solvable.

The tents look fine, same with the chairs and bags, but i’d need to see up close if there is a detail normal and if they look fine up close.
Some good micro detail on those would go a long way.

For the cranes one could ask that it requires high end textures for each part and piece, and in general it would potentially help
 but you cannot expect a massive crane like that to have each piece a separate texture.
some rust here and there would make it look great up close.
The reflective value looks a tad off, cant put my finger on it, but simple value-tweaking would go a long way.

Would I personally refuse the pack?
Its hard to tell, I like to be up close and personal, I would def. suggest to tweak some things.
I’d like to see the rocks re-uv’ed and perhaps have a more proper texture (/rough/norm) id like to see some of those branches/wood to be less stretched (which is an official reason for declining content)
I’d like to see the tents/bags up close and make sure there is micro detail so it really comes across as tent fabric canvas.
I would try and give the cranes a more realistic texture (smore rust/damage) and use an atlas to easily add some variation to parts.
I would probably not decline the cranes, but again
 its sometimes really hard to tell without actually being able to look at the models in real time.

I can also not say anything about the material setups/blueprints, I do know that the people that look at the blueprints can be real whiney about even one overlapping wire and everything needs to be over-explained inside the blueprints.
I can also not say anything about the use of material instances and other “behind the scenes” content.

Its all minor and small things at first glance, stuff that can easily be rectified.
If I where i’d spend some time improving the content a little and resubmitting.
Perhaps ask on a forum thread/facebook post/discord channel what could be improved.

And I’d also suggest him to not give up on this yet.

But I also do understand that the marketplace is overwhelmed with content, so I can understand that there are instances where you just have to be bold and send a generic response.
If you get a few dozen packs a day, its tedious and time-consuming to tell every potential seller whats wrong, and even worse if you’d need to explain not only what needs to change but how to change it.
I doubt they’d get paid for telling potential sellers how to make their content and how to improve it, and while I do feel like they should give guidance to sellers who show great potential but just have a few things wrong
 I also feel that if the content is below a certain bar they need to have the right to send a semi-automated mail with “lol, nope”.

In this case an email with “retexture rocks, check your uv stretching/texel density” would have gone a long way. and would have taken less time than reply to any of us in this thread. (something to consider in the future)

[=Rallii;693530]
I’ll be the first to defend Epic, lol. Could you show us what your content is so we don’t blame Epic for something none of us actually seen? And you say, and I “How can well detailed objects up to 100k Tris be lacking of quality?” Is that maybe the problem? 100,000 tri’s? Is that REALLY needed? If I placed 10 in my scene, by my games “wiggle room for more assets”, I could place those 10 and I am tapped out for poly budget, not to mention the textures that also have to be drawn on a 100,000 tri mesh. Is said mesh small or big? Also could be your issue. It’s a sales pitch to Epic, not a “get my stuff on there because I and others think it looks great!”.

Also, is your mesh for ArchViz, games, production?! Not specifying could hurt your chances. If a 100,000 poly mesh is for “games”, Epic may be laughing at you behind a screen (probably not though).

Show us your content so I can also defend you :slight_smile:
[/]

Don’t deal with “Maybe” and “Perhaps”. If 100,000 tris was the issue, They should have simply wrote, “100,000 tris is to high for a game model”.

Quality of the work every individual does matches their own level of experience. No one who ever submits low quality work, knows their work is low quality, because they haven’t done better than that yet. And flat rejection will always seem bad behavior to them. Sometimes all Epic need to do is to reply back with a picture of a better looking art of similar type and the creator will know why their work is called **** when they compare their own with the other one. The rest is on the creator to figure out how to improve. But that minimum input from Epic is always required.

As for the free assets, they look ok, but Luo is probably right on the up close detail on medium to large objects. Not to mention I bet ‘free’ is at the bottom of their list of things to add since it costs them money to have someone look over the assets to make sure they are ok. Nobody’s time is free :wink: Unless you’re Luo, everyone loves Luo so his packs go straight to the top :stuck_out_tongue: lol j/k.

The Crane actually does look pretty good, other than (why am I even typing), again what Luo mentioned. It needs some rust parameters, maybe some weathering as well. Be warned also that some people may badger you to make it operational, and may rate it badly if it’s just a static prop. If I were one of those guys, I would like to see the vertical frame separated from the horizontal frame and make the vertical frame modular (maybe a 10ft section, 20ft section etc) so it can be placed on building rooftops without having the entire frame overlap inside the building and to save polycount wherever possible. If you also separated the Winch from the horizontal frame, you could almost make it fully operational in BP’s. Minus cockpit controls :stuck_out_tongue: Food for thought!

Whenever you’re ready to release those free assets, I’d be all over them. My project does need tents, sleeping bags (rolled & open) and a campfire :slight_smile:

Good luck, !

Isn’t that the whole argument, Max Dev? Is no, that they are in fact not specifying? :slight_smile: My point is still valid lol

[]
Unless you’re Luo, everyone loves Luo so his packs go straight to the top :stuck_out_tongue: lol j/k.
[/]

<_< Who is Luo?, also I wish everyone loved me. would mean more hugs.

Why, Luo is Luo :slight_smile: And Luo can only be you!

I also think you need more content saying there are 9 camping tents, 5 camping stools, 4 sleeping bags when there really is only one of each with just a texture change which you should just setup inside its material, the textures and normals look very dated.

Thank you all for the positive feedback. We decided to abandon the Unreal Marketplace for multiple reasons. Working on something that kills your creativity (due to the **** methods used by on judging content.) is something we don’t want to do. We will work on interior designs in CAD for Real estates in the future without clouded minded people ruining the fun and passion on our work. I wish you all good luck in the future with our fight at the marketplace. Cheers.

I’m rezzing this thread because the issue certainly isn’t dead.

I’ve been rejected because:

  • The example level was called “Example_Level” and the reviewer wanted it to be called “Example_Map”.
  • Because though I had every texture in a folder structure like this:
    \object
    exture
    \mesh
    \material&instance
    But I had the textures as “objectname_tex” and he made me rename every one to “tex_objectname” then rejected it again because he wanted “t_objectname”. Incidentally, two other projects with this naming convention were already approved.
  • The next project, which was functionally the same as the last project, and shared the naming convention, was rejected by the SAME REVIEWER on the grounds that the naming convention was bad. It was HIS naming convention and I showed side-by-side comparisons with my other project’s naming convention he’d thrust upon me to prove it was precisely the same. I have screenshots and correspondence from this.
  • He ignored me from then on. I had to call support. They agreed with me and approved my projects.

That’s just one little set of stories. They expect us to put in way, way, way more effort and time into Unreal Projects but have untrained people who are completely indifferent review the projects. I had another guy, in my grass pack, say that every single one of my material and textures maps were the same - they were all duplicates of one another. I had to point out that not only did they all have different names, were different sizes, were attached to different materials, were in different folders, if you in fact brought them up visually they would not look at all the same, and if he’d kindly look at the example level, he’d note they were all laid out nicely all looking completely different.

After a few days and no changes
 Approved. Best selling pack for years. I have never had any complaints whatsoever. I have had one refund, and the guy emailed me about it saying he messed up.

Why should I spend the time on here? Unreal nickles and dimes my time to the point of it being a negative value proposition.

A bit off topic but when you look at the featured assets, there most of the time low quality and feel like its some random pick up

I am a mature seller, I uploaded more than 7 assets, so my words are worthy of reference.
Direct rejection is fortunate because you don’t need to worry about subsequent modifications
I used to upload goods many times, went through a long period of modification, and finally the product was rejected. This is an annoying and helpless thing.

[=“SuperfuntimesV, post:31, topic:89576”]

Why should I spend the time on here? Unreal nickles and dimes my time to the point of it being a negative value proposition.
[/]

This is exactly why I don’t bother submitting content here anymore. When all the time dealing with Epic staff is factored in, it takes way too long to break even.

[=“BlackFangTech, post:34, topic:89576”]

This is exactly why I don’t bother submitting content here anymore. When all the time dealing with Epic staff is factored in, it takes way too long to break even.
[/]

Are there other/better places to look for content? (Asking as a consumer here)

[=“BlackFangTech, post:34, topic:89576”]

This is exactly why I don’t bother submitting content here anymore. When all the time dealing with Epic staff is factored in, it takes way too long to break even.
[/]


 and you’ve got really cool work, by the way. Was just looking through your store!

I also have to say that I reached out to support about this recently, and actually received a no-excuses “sorry about your experience, that was a regular complaint, we’ve worked very hard to fix our issues, please consider developing for the marketplace again” which I didn’t expect at all. I do have to say, that was a pretty genuine apology email from their staff.

Hello

I am totally new in the role of an seller and also in the area of 3d Modeling and developing in unreal engine (iam an total nobby so to speak ).
My first submission was replied with the standard “not enough content” statement. The quality was not questioned so far. Is there are a rule of thumb how much meshes materials and texture must be provided for approval?

Please fell free to criticize my first try. I wanna learn from the veterans. Ist there something terrible wrong? look the screenshot.The Models are created in blender.

[=“Twaick”]

Is there are a rule of thumb how much meshes materials and texture must be provided for approval?

[/]

Last time I got this they told me I needed at least 10 unique meshes. In your screenshot I see 5, the 2 chairs will not be viewed as unique and I can see the reasoning behind the rule, I wouldn’t buy your pack in your current form because it will be hard for me to find other packs in the same style that could actually fill up a living room.

Thank you for the replay Cgeorges your staff is relay impressive. I wish I had such developed skills. But i on my way.

But i am a bit confused about your claim. The first proposition you a made is :“there is not enough uniqueness” the second :” its not possible to combine the assets with other assets, because they have have a unique style “ ar both proposition taken together not contradictory?

Or represent the first proposition the perspective of Epic and the second your own as a potential consumer?

But I get the strategic message I guess. If you try to make unique models, you have to rise the quantity of meshes to provide the potencial consumer the possibility to design stylistic consistent levels. The advantage is , that your models have a high value thats convert into a high pricing. The disatvantage is you have much work to do.

But if you try to make models that arent unique at all, you have to look which styles of models are already out there. You dont have to rise the quantity necessary, because your model can be easily combined with staff from other people. The advantage is , you dont have much work to do, the disadvantage is, your models are nothing special . You have to price them low to make them attractive for someone.

Wow the gametheory of epic marktplace

[=“Twaick, post:38, topic:89576”]

Or represent the first proposition the perspective of Epic and the second your own as a potential consumer?

[/]

Thanks Twaick.

Yes, the second was from the customer perspective. The marketplace (and any other 3d markets) has already issues finding what you need for your game so bigger packs keeps the market a bit more easy to navigate. Imagine if I could buy just one of your chairs, then I have to go through thousands of products to find a table that matches your chair and so on.