Selling content that is on the marketplace - just cheaper

[Mortusnyte]

I think we have a lot "luxury" cars, because people set prices based on how much time and effort they put into their product, which is quite understandable position. For example, look at Modular Rocks & Caves, Steampunk Airship and Ledge climbing system - they are outstanding AND they took a LOT of time to produce. I've seen the process of development of the forums and I know that developers have set this price not from "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY MORTALS" standpoint, but rather "Well, I've put X amount of my skill and Y amount of my time, so price will be THIS". However, I believe they are missing some key elements - who is the customer and how much money customer willing to pay for the product.

I agree especially with your last point. But I think that this is also tricky, because UE4 went F2P basically, that changed the whole game. Professionals as well as casual developers are all mixed in the same bowl. Trying to accommodate both is definitely going to be a challenge and in many cases, content creators will most likely opt to target one of the 2 audience. Who is likely to make them more money, the professional or the casual dev? I guess this is highly dependant on the number of purchases which is bound to significantly change as time goes. In light of all this, has anyone tried the donation route? How well does that work in the gaming industry? This is an option that I am strongly inclined towards in order to have initial prices lowered. But perhaps I have too much faith in people :P

I would like to note that I do not agree with the original op's #1 post (And anyway, the content creators can alter their prices at any time). The whole "I just want part of the system and not all of it", like Jon Jones said, message the content creator and chances are he'll find a way to release a simplified version of his system if it can pass through the submission process.

Regardless, this topic warrants some discussion.

[PolyPlant]

It would be fine. If you want to sell something and think it will give more profit and push competition into the ropes if it is cheaper, then there are no ethical reasons to not do it. Therefore it is called market!
The overpriced items will go down in price anyway over time. Look at the Unity marketplace and you will see what prices are being asked if the community gets rolling.
Right now the marketplace suffers also a bit from, lets put it friendly: 'inexperienced' hosts (not saying 'not the brightest'). There was a post some time ago from the marketplace Epic people when they introduced the xx.99$ pricing more or less saying: 'After extensive research and rocket science calculations, we figured out that xx.99$ will increase sales as opposed to round numbers'. So you know the quality that hosts the market place...
Either they really 'researched' that xx.99$ sells better, which is, I mean, not just known since yesterday, or they attempted an 'official statement' like the big boys. It was quite silly. Although I might use the cutting edge finding as well: Anyone wants to by my sandwich for $99.99? Come on, how can you resist? It is xx.99!!!

[zeOrb]

It would be fine. If you want to sell something and think it will give more profit and push competition into the ropes if it is cheaper, then there are no ethical reasons to not do it. Therefore it is called market!
The overpriced items will go down in price anyway over time. Look at the Unity marketplace and you will see what prices are being asked if the community gets rolling.
Right now the marketplace suffers also a bit from, lets put it friendly: 'inexperienced' hosts (not saying 'not the brightest'). There was a post some time ago from the marketplace Epic people when they introduced the xx.99$ pricing more or less saying: 'After extensive research and rocket science calculations, we figured out that xx.99$ will increase sales as opposed to round numbers'. So you know the quality that hosts the market place...
Either they really 'researched' that xx.99$ sells better, which is, I mean, not just known since yesterday, or they attempted an 'official statement' like the big boys. It was quite silly. Although I might use the cutting edge finding as well: Anyone wants to by my sandwich for $99.99? Come on, how can you resist? It is xx.99!!!

This thread is not about .99$ policy, please use appropriate thread for this feedback and don't derail this one.

Thanks.

[SaviorNT]

(Coming from a non-seller)

I would be highly against what the OP is suggesting, however, it's just a matter of time tbh. You see this everywhere on the internet, people re-packaging and reselling, which sucks.

Now, as far as prices go, it depends on the assets, development time, how "useful" it is, and re-usability (can it span multiple projects / genres).

[Luftbauch]

@savior i think it would be a good productprotection, when you sell content with fair prices and do some updates.
On the MP are fair priced and overpriced products. Sure some are nice, but very specific.
Last time i wrote, that i find 2500$ for a realistic handgun seems to much, but another user commented, he bought similar stuff in the past for 10.000$, an he find it cheap.
PPL need to be rich these days, where a family-cineplexvisit with some extras cost you around 100 bucks, for boring or silly films.

[lunyBunny]

Must be careful, can become an unfair competition.

I quote an example:

This is what happens When a particular country subsidizes an such multinational company, in applying very large tax and economic incentives to destroy any competition in an underdeveloped country. ie. "Walmart versus local, familiar and individual merchants" in USA can fit perfectly.

This also has the power to destroy the own market, in consequence this, any competition which could benefit the consumer.


A big unfair commercial success can turn out to be a monopoly establishing its prices in the way that is convenient for them, and has in your lobbyists power capable to corrupt any regulatory system, to destroy any market/economy.

Unfair low prices. Free market! "take care",

Where I live, this is clearly visible into the cartel of the automobile companies, (all are multinational companies, JP, KR, CN, US, DE...), a popular car (very popular car) here "almost a motorized chariot" cost in our money nearly the equivalent a Jaguar and even a Ferrari if converted in United States Dollars. To pay a single car takes nearly five years of installments!

When complete the payment, the car is already a scrap metal, it's time to start with another five years of sweat and 'inflated' debts with the banks.
You can be sure that this car is done to deliberately begin stuttering like an old man early as in the second year.


Luny

[C-Arch]

@SaviorNT It was clarified that i was not implying cloning content.

Some work i did was the motivation behind starting this thread.
To keep it on point it comes down to

A) It has less functionality that the current system available
B) Users then have more than one option for acquiring such a system
C) Broke users like me can purchase a system that is complete but has less functionality that other similar systems which justifies a lower asking price.

The purpose of the thread was to establish how the community would react at having more than one system available to them and also how developers would react to seeing a system they have created done by another user (No not their system cloned... just something that does the same thing)

There were some valid points made. Its good to see Epic states that they wont necessarily prevent content from appearing because there is already content similar, putting the monopoly theory to bed.

[TetraClock]

Unreal Marketplace is not a "free market". Entry barriers much? (Lengthy QA process that we have to go through). Anyway, you'll be screwed if one of those guys happened to patent his/her product. Not really against undercutting, but know your risks.

[zeOrb]

Unreal Marketplace is not a "free market". Entry barriers much? (Lengthy QA process that we have to go through). Anyway, you'll be screwed if one of those guys happened to patent his/her product. Not really against undercutting, but know your risks.

Ahem. Free market is a market in which prices are free and not forced by somebody else.
And it's rather unlikely that someone will "patent" their product on Marketplace. I'm not sure it's even possible and if it is then it will be applied only if you copy full implementation of the product, not just idea.

[BlackFangTech]

In my opinion, there are a few blueprint systems that are vastly overpriced. If you make something that accomplishes the same functionality, as long as you didn't copy the code, then you should be free to sell it for however much you want, probably depending on how much time you put in. This has the caveat that some of these systems actually aren't overpriced because they come with lots of mesh assets to be used with them.

[Uprentiss]

I would personally find that to be extremely unethical, and I wouldn't accept anything built for that reason. If you're going to build something, build it to fill a need and do it really well because people want it. Don't do it just to build knockoff products to undercut people that work hard. That's not competition.

If you think the prices are too high, contact the creator and talk about it. Maybe they'll listen, maybe they won't, but if you're a potential paying customer, getting input like that is really important and valuable.

Are you serious? that is business. to make a better product then your competition. there is nothing wrong with making a product just as good at a more reasonable price. I have idea what type of business ethics go on at Epic but you did just that to unity and cryengine. it is crazy for the company you work for to do what you are claiming is unethical. there is nothing at all unethical about creative a competitive project. especially in a competitive market.

[Uprentiss]

Wow I just read the rest of the replies, it is called a market and in sales there is competition. without competition a person can charge 500 dollars for a can of beans.without the other company selling there can of beans for 50 cent then the 500 dollar can of beans will never change because they do not have to . tellng someone that building a similiar product and selling it cheaper is unethical is insane and amateur at best. without competition the marketplace because insanely expensive where only the rich and shiek can shop there. without competition there is no win for consumers take cell phones

the reason verizon mobile does not charge 3000.00 dollars for a phone service is because there is att.sprint and etc
the reason amd does not charge 80,000 dollars for a processor is because they have competition from Intel

it goes on and on...

i say there needs to be a ton more competition....

[Obsidiaguy]

Businesses in the free market usually have ways to protect themselves, with copyright or patents. People making content such as blueprints for the marketplace don't exactly have that protection. I think specifically recreating a blueprint just to undercut price is very unethical, and predatory. I'm glad we have people to protect our hard work.

It's a tough line to draw. I don't see why someone who creates a similar product for the marketplace as something already for sale should be negatively impacted if they came up with it independently, but I guess that just means you better do a **** good job with your submission in the first place.

[Crushed]

If someone makes a better product and cheaper it should absolutely not be rejected and its not unethical either. Rejecting it would allow people getting away with prices like 170€ for some textures especially when 3rd party assets are often a gamble in terms of quality.

[Necrophob30]

I don't think the issue is really that they don't want competition. I think they don't want someone buying a blueprint pack, pulling out what they need, and repackaging it as their own product. However, this will get really hairy to determine.