Game Devs Crying About Asset Flips?

"I bet you that this asset flip will make way more money than I ever will on rock n roll"
Same, it looks way better. Asset flip or not at least it looks enjoyable

 

The problem with this entire debate is that people are using ´asset flip´ to mean something it is not

1. Asset flip = buying a finished game or kit on the Asset Store, renaming it and releasing it as a game. There are a bunch of games like this on the asset store.

2. Not Asset flip = buying or using free assets to complete a game that is far beyond what comes with the asset store package.

My game was done entirely with free models and art ( rocks, skyboxes, music and ships). Here is my challenge that it is not an asset flip. Download all of the same packages I did and make my game in less than 100 hours....and go.

 

It's the far beyond part that I think maybe is the source of the issue. Different people interpret that differently. You know the whole "how much does a person need to do" question?

I still don't see why any person cares how much additional effort any person is putting in. The released game is either good, terrible or somewhere in between. The game should be judged on the game. Not judging if the developer worked enough or not. lol How it was made is neither here nor there providing the person didn't steal the game outright or steal the content in it.

The only issue I see with people buying a full game template and flipping it with a new name into a released game is that many people can do the exact same thing. But that is more of an issue for those people is basically like other markets... the first person to do it or the first person to do it and market it well has the advantage. And this is their problem mainly. The people doing it. Sure it does clutter up the market but at this point there is so much out there anyway I don't think throwing another dozen or so games on the stores per week will be very noticeable.

I think part of why I have this view is because I believe it is quite likely there are templates on the Asset Store that are the same or higher level of quality and the same or higher degree of completeness than many of the "my first game" projects being released.

 

It's a completely separate issue, but do you think that people should be releasing "my first game" projects commercially?

 

Should they? Ah I can't really say what they should be doing. I guess let me put it like this... if it were up to me (and of course it is not up to me and we can all see what we have as a result but anyway...) if it were up to me... I'd say every person making games for the first time in their life should go through a sort of path. First couple of games tiny and either nobody else sees them period or they can share them with their friends. Next few games a little more ambitious and they release those on the web game portals. After they have "completed" (I've seen many games out there released that are more like experiments than actual completed games but they obviously saw them as completed) say 6 to 7 games then they can get a game on Steam and the mobile app stores.

Again... that is just what I personally feel would be a good thing. I also know that many people including many here would disagree with that. But I think it is not a good thing for people to be throwing their very first game or two out onto the commercial markets. I think everyone is in such a rush to make money and there are no barriers at all these days. So having some kind of "x games under your belt" requirement would at least mean that people have a certain amount of experience and likely the quality of their first released games would improve at least by a tiny bit. And that is good for everyone. It would also have slowed down and probably even eliminated some people who think they shouldn't have to "pay their dues" like that.

 

yeah, I went through that and decided to go with Itch because I could put it for free, and then on the ´win´ screen I put a message that if they enjoyed the game, please go back and buy it to support my next game. Of course, as far as I can see, only 5 people have even downloaded it, so.... lol

 

I broadly and generally agree in principle, and think that amongst some newbies there's a tendency for premature commercialisation. I don't think there needs to be a set path or concrete requirements, though, as there are (rare) examples of people or teams who've made excellent stuff with their first game.

That's a pretty good approach, if you ask me. Do you have anything built in so you can get feedback from those who do play the game?

By the way, welcome to the community!

 

Yeah I agree. I thought about that too. There are always exceptions. Some learn faster some just work harder some have skill in one area or another. Then I thought well it still wouldn't harm anything for them to follow such a process. I wish they would not come in seemingly thinking primarily about money but circumstances may drive that.

 

We released our first game to Steam, why wouldn't we?

 

Like I said, there are exceptions. The "broad and general" answer to that question, though, is same as the reason I wouldn't try to sell concert tickets for the first few songs I learn to play on a musical instrument.

 

But game dev isnt very different from ordinary programming. So its more like a normal guitar guitarist sells tickets to his first bass guitar concert

 

Yep, so if you're already an experienced programmer then it's way easier to become one of the exceptions. For many people, their first game is also their first or very early programming experience, and it shows. There's nothing wrong with that, in exactly the same way as there's nothing wrong with me being a beginner musician.

 

Very true, dont understand it either. Better learn C# (And general programming that comes with it) first Unity later in my opinion

 

The majority of devs that do release their first game lack any sort of self awareness, and release a clone of pong that they did by following a tutorial on Udemy.

Having some self awareness, allowing oneself to know if a game is of a high enough quality to be "worthy" of releasing commerically, is a great skill to have.

I obvioulsy don't know about your particular game, but that's a reason why you wouldn't release your first game.

 

Self awareness has nothing todo with first game or not, I know programmers that lack self awereness after decades in the softtware industry

 

Anecdotal evidence (which doesn't state if these seasoned devs are releasing quality stuff or not) doesn't diminish the importance of self awareness down to "nothing".

Nor is it the be-all and end-all, which I hope my post didn't make it seem.

 

Yeah, nobody's saying it's a concrete rule. In fact, I think everyone weighing in so far has taken pains to highlight the opposite.

I think "self awareness" is a pretty good way to describe it, though. If you know something isn't quite there yet then it's just a matter of time and effort to cross the gap. But if you don't realise it's not there yet, you've got no chance. That self awareness can absolutely come from work in other fields as it's pretty transferrable - it's not about technical skill, it's about being able to judge the results you're getting without the effort you've put in clouding your judgement.

 

Good points. We released too early to Steam EA. BUT.... The game wiuld not have been the same if we did not. Lots of feedback from the players that have made it into the game

 

Frankly I don't think your game is bankable in today's era. You're shooting for a target that can't be hit hard enough to make a dent with the wrong weapon. The game is awesome but you don't have a money man's head.

What I am saying is I don't think it can make big money whatever configuration you choose to release it as, because people are responding to different stimuli. Perhaps if it was on the start of the VR craze?

This is not a criticism of the game, just the market tastes that shift and change.

edit: take a look at what @xenius is doing with his game, it's really hit a market segment well IMHO...

 

I dont make a game for casual gamers, in that regard it will never hit the big market like for example PUBG. But there is room for games like Squad, ARMA, SWAT4 etc, etc. Problem is VR market is so small.. Lucky for me my company also is a corporate business software company so we make profit on that

 

Good yeah, I'm the same I just do my thing. Sometimes I think that if we all went full business, nothing new would be made.

 

To be honest, that kind of supports one of hippo's points. PUBG may not be as hardcore/enthusiast as your game, but nobody who understands the gaming market (and shares its common vocabulary) would call the people who play it "casual" or anything close.

 

Not true, for example they do group all 7.62 ammo under same category while in reality russian 7.62 is chambered in 7.62x39 and Nato 7.62x51. You can heal instant etc, etc. DayZ is a game that I would call none casual

 

"Casual" vs. "hardcore" or "enthusiast" isn't about the technical authenticity of the games played, it's about how dedicated they are to playing them.

 

Well, I do not agree. A casual gamer is someone that wants a quick game. In and out. PUBG supports that, games like DayZ does not. Heck our game support that too, if you learn the none casual mechanics that is

 

You can disagree all you want. You'll still be wrong.

 

Maybe dumbed down is a better term (Maybe forgiving is a more political correct term)

edit: I'm never wrong

 

Like I said, relative to your game the term "casual" fits. Where I was saying that your words supported hippo's statement was this:

In the context of the games industry, the money people do not call PUBG "casual".

 

I'm a businessman, but I'm also a gamer

 

I listen to a lot of music, but I've never sold a record.

 

You probably are better at music than the suits at BMG, Sony etc

 

Being that lately I've been focusing a lot in Asset Store content, it sort of bothers me the confused people thinking that Asset Store has done more harm than good, in reference of the alleged Asset Flipping problem.

It's just people with no notion of dimension of the game industry, talking randomly after reading some blog or meme or something ridiculously unscientific like that.

The very nature of small indie games using stock assets, makes it demonstrably erroneous and naive to think there can be a considerable overlap between players of two games that share stock art.
Even in the case of characters which is what I do, it's the worst case scenario ... naturally you'd think "No way Jose, EVERYONE will see my character in another game, and the angry mob will find me and poke me with their sticks"

Not going to happen, it's a near statistical impossibility.

With luck, these small indie games using stock assets, will get a few thousand players, and so will the OTHER indie game using the same stock art. The game market has an estimate of 1.8 billion gamers. The chances that even a negligible portion of players will even play two games that share the same asset, is nearly impossible. Not in a considerable proportion. (All assuming some famous youtuber doesn't point it out, which is also very unlikely)

So using stock art is not just NOT a problem, if it's what you want to do for your first projects ... it's also a smart thing. Of course, for your big game, your master piece, you can use the money you saved in previous projects using stock art, to pay for custom art.

 

Depends on the popularity and generic-ness of the asset(s), I've seen 5-10 games (probably more) that use Synty Studios assets, and more pop up - let's say - monthly in the indie game Facebook groups.

 

Yes, I don't deny that at all. I knew someone was going to say something like that. I too have seen many games using my assets too, but that's only because I know my assets + I check out many games.

But that does not matter at all.

Think about it this way.
How many games did you have to see in order to identify Synty Studios' assets? You're a developer, so I assume plenty. And yet, realistically ... you still probably only checked no more 1% of all the games in the indie game market, as there are a lot of games, and new ones every day.

Furthermore, you are probably familiar with no more 1% of available stock assets out there, I'm sure, as there are a lot of assets out there (new ones every day too) Or at least familiar enough to be conscious of them when browsing games.

This means that you are missing the absolute majority of games re-using stock assets. And you're a game developer! Average gamer will be less prone to be alert to these sort of things.

But even then, even then, it still doesn't matter.
Because what I said is not that "1 person in particular can never spot re-used stock assets". What I've said is: "1 game in particular, is very unlikely to get a lot of people that will identify the stocks assets" maybe 1 guy will, sure ... maybe 10 if stock asset in question is too common.
But it will never amount to an angry mob, will never be more than a few people ... and realistically? it will be 0, as great great majority of stock assets are not used often enough commercially to be a problem. After all finishing games is hard, and it only matter if the game is finished and submitted to stores. Most stock assets are safe.

 

The assetstore publisher link in your signature seems broken for me, better double check that.

Do you sell all the custom art you made for Felis on the assetstore? And if not, why?

By the way that crocodile is adorable and I love the animations!

 

@dogzerx2 That is basically how I see it. It doesn't seem to be the gamers in general harping about asset usage or even outright full flips... it is the watchdog committee of people like Jim Sterling, Sid Alpha & others AND those are almost certainly tipped off and fueled by the real group behind it all which seems to be other game devs themselves. I find that behavior kind of repulsive personally.

Like this fella who made his Asteroids inspired game. In general I would probably have supported him and bought the game recognizing he put effort & thought into improving on the game design while keeping it pretty retro authentic. But seeing him attack other people and seeing that is all driven by money well I lose any respect I had for the people doing this kind of thing.

To me they are worse than the people actually doing full asset flips. I can even understand Jim doing it because he is putting on a show and like all news he looks for things to create drama around. But when it is ultimately game devs themselves jealous who are the real force behind it I don't know I guess in some ways I've always seen it as a sort of brotherhood (and sisterhood not to exclude the ladies) and for jealous game devs so caught up so obsessed with money to try to stir up so much crap about asset usage and flips it is like they can't be trusted. Seems like they'd sell you out in a second if it can help them to get ahead ad make a buck. Just my view at least at this time.

 

First of all thank you so much!!

Secondly, I don't know how to fix the signature, I keep pasting the link https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/650
But first click always takes you to asset store home page, 2nd time it seems works.

Actually not a bad idea. Someone could make a whole new game using all my game art, and I bet 99%-100% of people wont realize it's art of the famous game Felis.
Thanks for the idea!! I would need to package it neatly, it would take some time to do that, but there's actually a lot of neat content in it, some of it very generic re-usable in other games.

 

An asset flip is something that gamers call an asset flip.

Nothing else actually matters.

 

And besides, what people like Jim Sterling denounce, is not re-using stock assets ... but the he consider abuse.
We can discuss where the line that separates abuse and reasonable use, but ideally, if you stay on the safe say (in other words, put some love and make a game that's nice) ... it doesn't even matter at all that you use stock assets.

The consumer doesn't care. So yeah, it's probably other devs that care more about it.

 

The water in Felis is gorgeous

 

Correction: The whole game is.

 

Well, that too, but the water specifically caught my eye!

 

Thank you so much guys!

 

I just wanted to let you know I clicked on that link many times and always it took me to the store home page.

If you link like this (took some digging to find this format) it does work at least here.
https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/search/page=1/sortby=relevance/query=publisher:650

 

That's a new asset store link. It only works for people who have the new asset store enabled. You should use the old asset store for getting links like @GarBenjamin posted that work for everyone.

 

Oh, perfect. That format seems to do the trick! I would never have guessed that!

This will help me a lot! Thank you :-D

Looks like things are still in transition :-0

 

Welcome to the small pond of VR games

 

Yeah ..... an entire map is perhaps too much, hehe.

I mean, the idea is not that you can abuse stock art, as there are also people that take a tutorial or project template, export it as it is ... and submit it to the store.
.....But the crazy part? Some those flipped games return profit, because for every knowledgeable gamer criticizing its asset flipedness, there can be a dozen or even hundred casual people that never seen it before, thinking it's entirely original.

 

I think this is a valuable topic. I suspect a more fundamental answer would be related to the goal of the game project.

Many people's "first game" is something they put together to learn how to make games, not something they put together to convey an experience to a user. They don't really concern themselves with playtesting, with building a cohesive experience (UX I suppose), stuff like that. Hence, it shouldn't really be put on sale.

If the goal of your project is to make a user-focused product, that's going to change the way you make the thing, and in that case I think it's more than acceptable to release a product.


You make an interesting analogy, and one can draw such an analogy to writing as well, though in both cases it really only highlights the dramatic difference in how creating these types of media is done.

Regarding writing: we spend years and years learning how to write as children. For the overwhelming majority of us this includes some English (not the language, but the subject)-derived "creative writing" segment, where we learn (presumably) how to put words and sentences and paragraphs together in compelling sequences. And even after that, only a small portion of people go on to start writing creatively. And even after that, only a subset of that group goes on to releasing their work to the public (to varying levels of success).

Regarding musicianship: We aren't taught this compulsively in school, though many of us were pushed in this direction by parents. So only a subset move in this direction, to start playing music. Even then, pretty much 100% of the learning process is spent on already completed works, where the learner isn't developing creatively. And so, it's a very small portion that goes on to creating their own work--I'd say the smallest proportion out of any of our three different medium types. And even there, it's a very small portion that moves to releasing their work to the public.

And then we have games. Unlike the others there isn't really an established framework for how to learn (one could say that about any of these, but given than we learn creative writing in school and that music teachers are so prevalent I wouldn't agree with such an assertion). And personal creation is such an integral part of the learning process--at ALL times you're encouraged to play around, to build your own thing using a few well-known building blocks.

So it seems like there are two main aspects to this: how guided the learning process is, and how creative the learning process is. Writing is very guided and very creative. Musicianship is moderately guided and pretty much not creative at all. Game development is very unguided yet very creative.

The combination of those two seems to lead to work of dramatically varying quality, with little or nothing in the way of telling a creator if they should share their work or not.


Now we could go a little further, and take a look at A) making movies, or "moving pictures" of some kind, B) the methods of distribution for both commercial and non-commercial releases of this work (things like fanfiction.net or YouTube or itch.io) and how that effects what an average consumer sees, and C) the financial or social implications of success with each medium type (which of course impacts how new creators approach the medium). But that would actually be a lot further, and this post is long enough.

 

I agree that the decision regarding ammo grouping in PUBG seems weird at first to gun enthusiasts. For example, I initially found it odd that completely different guns with vastly different damage levels used the same ammo in PUBG. But those devs made a super smart game design choice. They simplified the ammo enough to keep the game enjoyable. It would have been really frustrating for most gamers to make sense of all of the different ammo available if they had chosen to be 100% realistic about ammo types. Imaging picking up a gun in game and trying to quickly sort through 7.62x39, 7.62x54r, and 7.62x51. That would frustrate a lot of gamers. I do agree that it can feel strange to carry 7.62 ammo and feed it into both the AKM and Kar98, but the devs made a solid choice to make the game easier to play.