What really is an Asset Flip??

I'm sorry but the world will call them developers and tar you with the same brush. That's the reality. To a customer, anyone making a game is a developer. Even more important that we make the distinction of a good and bad developer, so the customer is clear on that being more important than the assets used.

Of course a "game" that only uses store bought assets is probably not going to be any fun by default but I aim to be proven wrong.

 

You should try ours, art wise it's 95 procent asset store, 4 procent artstation and 1 Procent custom. Code wise its 100 procent custom though

Come to think about it, I have made one model myself a plane in blender that we use with the cloth simulation in unity, very proud of it

 

Is it released? Looks like VR though, which will save you from the majority until such a time it becomes widely affordable. For now.

 

Well, I think it would be ideal if everything could be viewed in those terms, but unfortunately I think that there is not only a huge and immediate problem with games quality (not just on Steam but also/especially on the Play/iOS stores) but also, a sort of process has been created around game development that, amongst positive things, creates an environment where developers are able to fairly easily create and upload junk into public markets. This process consists of a) Unity being free and incredibly easy to use b) The existence of the Asset store and c) Steam pretty much opening the floodgates to anything that wants to spill through.

Now, in my mind, the answer is simple: Steam has to do quality control at the point where games go onto the market. Nothing else, such as imposing artificial restrictions on users of Unity, makes any logical sense whatsoever. I think the fact that anyone who blames Unity has not come up with any kind of constructive or practical suggestion that I've heard, proves this to be the case.

But here's what I think is going on. Steam have basically abdicated from their responsibility to their customers - originally they tried to offload that responsibility using greenlight but since that caused too much drama (stupid lawsuits and abuse going on between different parties) they have decided to basically stop all policing of games whatsoever. Logically, this should infuriate gamers, but I think (only guessing but I can't think of anything else) they are so enamored with the idea of 'moar options' as well as possibly the ability to find drama in ad hominem battles, that they basically accept that, and take it on themselves to determine some kind of mob rule. It might also be that they simply have nowhere else to go right now.

So where does this leave us as developers (who want to make games in our lifetimes), and the whole notion of `asset flipping' vs thoughtful re-use of assets? To be perfectly honest, I think we sort of have to define that ourselves and just live up to the consequences. Which is why I'm not especially mad to see Sterling go after some `asset flippers', because if the term ever moves out of ambiguous territory into some kind of at least dimly defined criterion, we have a good chance not just to define ourselves outside it but also to eradicate a problem which affects our customers and thereby affects us.

If I'm honest, I don't think that Sterling or anyone like him has some kind of issue with developers as a whole (though no doubt he sees problems much more in terms of the way they affect gamers, which is fine since that's who he is) so I think it would be good if some kind of notion about what constitutes a 'detrimental experience' to gamers was defined as soon as possible by those who popularly represent gamers. I can see their problem, I can see examples of not just asset flips but crappy games that I wouldn't want to waste an hour or two of my life finding out about, so I'm interested to see in which direction the term 'asset flip' might move, such that it would mean something beyond "1-100% not original".

Also, I think that a poorly managed market is bad for us in many ways, and not just in terms of whether or not we catch the business end of an asset-flip-hunting pitchfork every now and then. As far as I'm concerned the mobile stores are already far along a race to the bottom of an ever-growing repository of unvetted 'products', but also the number of games on Steam are somewhat exponentially rising, and it seems restrictions are being further lifted. It will not be long before all the problems that are fairly insignificant to us or which we would like to pass onto the gamer as the responsibilities of a customer, will be ones which we will not be able to ignore or avoid.

 

Yeah released last September in early access, no asset flip foul talking yet we use the same environment asset as another game that's gain a bit more traction than we and the fanboys of that game do say we stole the map even though we used the asset first

 

Calling every bad game an asset flip takes away the meaning. There need to be specific terms that mean specific things, so people can have meaningful conversations. When a developer creates a bad game with custom unique assets, we should not call that an asset flip. The term "asset flip" should be reserved for games that are merely an asset being sold as a game, such as an unmodified UnitZ game.

 

I agree that in the case of actual asset flippers, the term "seller" is more applicable than the term "developer". That is a moot point, though. The terms "Developer" and "Publisher" are listed on the Steam store pages for games. Those are the terms used on the Steam store, so even a blatant asset flipper is called "Developer" on the Steam store.

 

Yeah, sounds right, those other games are just bad games...

 

An older Unity game which did well is Thomas Was Alone. It's also the ultimate asset flip; everything is based on primitive cubes from the Unity editor

(OK, so there's narration too.)

 

haha, some asset store publishers are trying to turn profit on this asset flip hysteria

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/73691

 

The problem is that using assets from the asset store is not a "fault". lol

If one has the money, paying for custom assets is great or if they have the skills to model, uv, and texture. If not, so what if they use assets?

If you choose games based on that, you might be missing some games with great mechanics that happened because the developer, who is not an artist and does not have investors used his skills to create a game.

This whole thing is just silly. Bad games come from everywhere, even with custom assets. The problem is that it is cheap and easy for someone who has no clue how to make games to just use a demo scene or slap together a few free mix-matched assets and get it on Steam.

But..maybe that will change when they have to pay the fee and fill out paperwork. Give Steams new direction some time. As for the Google Play store and other mobile stores, I would be more worried about the copycats and stolen games than asset flippers. Not like you can see all that much on that teeny tiny screen anyway.

 

@Telia, I meant with scripting assets.... I will tear them apart method by method and learn how it's made, find any faults in the code that can be done better after learning how it works... That's why I love to code, there's so many ways to do the same thing, some are better than others..

But the whole 3d model thing, not going to type a lot on this one (as I did yesterday haha). But me personally - I don't care if you use 3d assets. (Me - as in I) do not care, however consumers may care... Everything I've said was spoken from a consumer standpoint, not my actual view of it.

But from my developers prospective, if you just want to avoid the situation then just make/pay/get someone to make the stuff for you. I agree though crappy games comes from everywhere, and an asset doesn't determine the quality of the game, the developer them-self does.

But again - from a consumer standpoint - consumers are ignorant sheep, just like all these supposed people who decide not to buy your game because it's made with Unity... Unity has this problem simply because of Asset flippers, not crap games in general, but actual asset flippers.

You can make two identical games on Unity and Unreal, or just say a game is made with Unreal and low and behold - your consumers no longer care and just say the game is either good or bad. But the second Unity is mentioned - "Game is crap asset flip, slow and horrid and made with Unity!".

But seriously - so people don't confuse what I'm saying.
(I do NOT care if you use assets), only if you want to avoid the whole 'Asset Flip' situation then don't buy the models.
As I mentioned - it's a gamble, but again - I personally do not care. But consumers are beasts and will have their opinion regardless. As someone else mentioned (There's a different between asset flip and asset user), well to a consumer there's only one thing - and asset flip.

Whether your game is an asset flip or not doesn't matter, because there's no real definition for it, only opinions, and if someone says your game is an asset flip - it will spread like a disease regardless of what you consider the definition.

 

Unfortunately @N1warhead what you say does seem like it will become the case if it isn't already. I'm not sure how we got from flipping kits such as UnitZ and others as games to now just using assets period being asset flipping. I mean it is absolutely stupid.

The problem I think (just my view on it) is various people on Steam were complaining so much and other such as Jim Sterling started covering it. And that brought a lot more attention to asset usage. And I think it just sort of got a life of its own. Kind of like someone mentioned... it has become a witch hunt. There are people out there who have made it their mission (calling it consumer protection) to locate all games and cover them that are using assets purchased on the Unity Asset Store and other stores.

The really sad thing is I think a lot of these morons doing this are no better than the asset flippers. I mean I think they just see this as a hot topic and they want to make money so now you have all of these "little guys and gals" making videos about asset flips... with that presented as just using anything you did not personally create yourself.

Stuff like this...

It is an idiotic viewpoint. It makes absolutely no sense. Even if a person buys all of the art for their game they still need to do the game design. The level design. The enemy behaviors and so forth. That is where their creativity and work would be.

It honestly makes me wonder if they people put a fence up around their yard do they personally cut down the trees, shape them as desired, stain them and so forth and then set it up. Or do they just do an asset flip for that? Ah I guess it is only an asset flip if someone is selling the product. So let's say they make something to sell. I wonder do they really assemble computers part by part and more than that do they actually build each part (because again if they use anything that someone else created then it is an asset flip at least in part). How about baking some cookies for that bake sale... I'm not sure they could buy cookie dough and would need to make that from scratch. Otherwise they would be flipping those cookies.

It is ludicrous to view using things to save time & effort as a bad thing. Yet that is what many of these people seem to be preaching out there.

 

This.
I still think the whole thing is a non issue. If someone's game is bashed and called an asset flipper, its probably because the game wasn't good or interesting in the first place. If i play some random game, and all I am seeing is assets I've seen elsewhere, the clearly the gameplay wasn't engaging. I've played and enjoyed games with crappy visuals (and I have not enjoyed games with great visuals). In the end, a game is a whole piece, it's a good or bad game on how everything works together.

 

The term is staring to get even more far from base, while expension pack is the most popular term right, destiny 2 and spla2oon have been call frequently asset flip ... what's next?

 

You! You're just an asset flip of your parents!

 

@GarBenjamin : Completely hear ya man.... it may be non-sense, however - very true. To us we see the value in such things, I mean me personally I create my own stuff. Not to avoid any asset flip labels, I just prefer to make my own. But it's going to get to the point that even if it's custom assets, you'll still get some kind of label unless it's highly regarded.

 

Well for me it is a great thing because I've seen at least a few different videos over the past months where the person said even if they had just used cubes that would be better than using assets someone else made because at least then the developer could honestly say they made them.

I really just don't get it. Because is that really true? We don't make cubes they are readily available in Blender and 3d game engines. And more than that... the part that is interesting to me... is taken at face value they are saying even if a person pays an artist to create the art... no difference. Why? Because they are focusing on the developer not creating everything themselves. Well if I hire an artist to create custom art for me that is still not doing it myself.

It is just very weird. But at the same time refreshing because perhaps this will grow into a movement where the humble cube is received as being more original and a sign of greater effort than awesome graphics. It is a very weird thing. Lol

 

@GarBenjamin LOL you and you're cubes I know you love the almighty cube lol.

 

Lol well my interest with cubes is I think it places more focus on the other aspects of the game. You know the game design, play mechanics, behaviors and even scale. I just think it is a very good challenge... can you make a great game with cubes that makes a person forget it is a game using only cubes? That I think in a way maybe should be the ultimate goal of any game dev but not exactly because people have other goals.

Ultra low poly would be my preferred choice. It is reasonably easy enough to create content quickly and it looks quite good. Has a distinct look to it... looks "very original" I think more so than most original hd art looks. To me anyway. After a while it all (even the most superb hd graphics) starts to look more or less the same. Only the fanatics will notice the differences I think.

 

Wonder why that does work with films?

They keep using the same characters all the time, geesh. How many times do we see the adorable George Clooney model over and over in a movie? Or Angelina Jolie! Yeah, sometimes they put them in different outfits and even put on new hair or even a fake nose, but I can tell it is the same model.

Funny thing too, when a model looks good in a film, more and more films seem to use those same character models.

Same with cars. Why do they use the same car models over and over again?

And sometimes, I see the same buildings, especially when recreating scenes from the real world or historical areas.

They really should just use cubes because at least those, they created themselves.

 

I think it depends on how configurable the core asset is. For example the Gary Oldman asset is highly configurable as opposed to say.., the Keanu model, which is less so.

 

@Teila I see it the same way. That is what I was saying in my post above with the video. It is crazy to me. I can't understand why it would bother anyone so much in the first place. Either these people think the ONLY real work involved in game dev is creating graphics or they are just trying to ride the train hoping their videos get a lot of viewers and bring them a lot of subscribers. I almost didn't include that video above for that reason.

With these people looking at it like... making levels? No problem! Just get some models and textures and you too can quickly build a nice level... it shows a clear lack of understanding / appreciation for the true effort involved in game dev.

I don't understand why anyone would even care. I watched a video where a guy was talking about a game he found that he said was a good game. It was well made and overall he seemed to like it. But he said after some investigation turns out this is just an asset flip which means the developer didn't do any work so he slammed it hard.

It's like some of them are trying to dictate what can and cannot be sold. Why do they care so much especially in a case like that? I mean why does it matter so much only for games and nothing else? Is it jealousy? Afraid some person may make money by buying assets and releasing a game?

I don't get it.

 

It is drama. Over the few years I have been working with Unity and meeting more and more developers, the more I think many of them are more drama queenish than my teen daughter's friends.

I could list the topics here that have caused drama in the game development community that really have nothing to do with making a good game, but I do not want to rehash such silly drama. lol

Gamer group are at least 10x worse.

 

I've not been in a game dev mode the past week or more so have been doing some investigating of my own trying to find the root cause of this movement.

This seems to be one of the core players... The Guardians of Greenlight.

As often is the case they started out with good intentions but seem to have got caught up into it so much they spread out from true asset flips to attack games they just don't feel should be on Steam for whatever reason. They have been a main source of contacting Jim Sterling to "expose" games.

From what I have found so far there is a growing network out there working independently yet together at the same time.

 

I have to wonder if they are the folks that are here on the Unity forums.

So...that is some good investigative work. So one group of gamers is spreading this to the rest of the game world. What is their motive? To make us change the way we make games? Do they simply hate Unity?

Or maybe it is just fun. Groups tend to start as a group that has something in common, take on a cause, and then get others to jump on the band wagon. Maybe the best thing to do would be to expose where this started. On the other hand, it could just get worse then.

 

Hmmm.. I wonder if I could get a license to make a Waldo asset..

Asset flips used to be called stolen images and included things like spotting clones of Boris Vallejos dragons on box artwork. I particularly like the Muybridge ones someone found. Just like assets, using them for their intended purpose, as a reference for motion, is somehow perceived as wrong.

 

Gonna call you out. You secretly like bits of drama as you can come out and wield the hammer of justice. Don't go denyin' now.

 

lol

No, I do not like drama. But some things, very few things, are worth standing up for. Unfortunately, too many people jump on the bandwagon and go with the flow. It is so much easier.

There are a handful of things that are really important to me. And I am not ashamed to speak out and not afraid.

Asset flipping is not one of my causes. I find it ridiculously silly to get all up in arms and feel the need to protect Steam from the bad Unity game developers. lol I doubt Valve is all that worried either.

However, how can I tell when something is important enough for me to respond? I often feel this icky feeling and it is not pleasant. I hate it actually. I have been trying to figure out how to stop getting alerts from threads I stopped watching for that reason but they just keep coming.

P.S. And no, I am not a robot. Would rather feel pain than nothing.

 

I've seen games made largely out of stock art (like 80%-100%) that have been well reviewed by gamers. The difference between these games and asset flips is that those games are actually fun to play.

If the game is fun, and it works holistically, then you're good to go... assets or not.

"Asset flip" is just slang for a game that clearly had no real skill or TLC in development.

I'm not surprised that it's being used to describe lazy AAA sequels as well, it's the same root cause: not enough care went into the development and everything just feels like a rehash of the same stuff.

 

You can click unwatch thread at the top of the page.

You also only get one 'current' new post alert per thread. So if you stop looking at the thread, you will stop getting alerts for it.

 

I think she might mean getting tagged in threads, though that's just a matter of going into the alert settings and changing it. It also comes with the caveat that you have to manually watch threads you're actually interested in.

 

Yeah, unfortunately there isn't much useful you can do about tags and quotes without loosing some of the useful functionality of the forums. Leveling up your ability to manually ignore the little red alert icon is difficult, but ultimately worth it.

 

Yeah, I need to level up. Fortunately, I have too much work to do so will probably just turn off alerts until our milestone is met.

Of course, I will miss all those Kiwasi and Murgilod posts. lol

 

I'll still be here when you get back. Despite the harm its doing me, I'm still firmly addicted to various forms of social media.

 

If it helps... from what I've read using 1 or 2 assets in your game is okay. But no more. Again it all comes back to are you making the game or is someone else. Their attitude. Not mine.

Examples of their comments on other games...

if you can't make original assets, then expect to get criticism in that regard and it would be best to not throw around the reasonings behind the usage. The usage of assets scream amateurism, so again, expect it to get flack.

you have just said that you used assets to free up time, something that can easily be sacrificed to put more time into the game, I don't see what the big deal is about not going out of your way to make your game better, if you can't do that, then I'm sorry, but I'm not sure why you're really a game developer, if you (like I said at the start) don't want to develop on your game.

Also these Guardians seem to have changed their operation and are now providing a service where you can submit your game and they will check out your game and give you feedback on what you need to change to sell it on Steam. So people can keep that in mind. Get some feedback from them to hopefully have a better experience on Steam.

And yes it wouldn't surprise me if not some members here that at least some here would completely agree with this attitude. Lol

Oops... sorry to pull you back in. I am done. Nothing more really needs to be said on it I think. We know this is a somewhat organized thing and I think they do mean well.

 

Ha!!

Most of the assets people use are completely invisible, such as a tool to create terrain, shaders, scripts, etc.

Who are these people to decide how many assets is okay?

One thing I do agree with is that developers should modify assets to some degree. Do we all really want the same house as everyone else in our game? Then change some textures, add some additional parts, make something widely different with a modular kit by adding your own custom bits.

A medieval house looks like a medieval house, no matter where it comes from. But you can make it look like YOUR medieval house just with a little tweaks. Saves some time from creating all from scratch and then you have assets that work together rather than ones that look like they pulled from different universes.

Now...what if I use 3dforge houses in my game and I change the textures, add my own parts to make the roofs different, the windows different, etc. Will Guardians study my houses under a microscope to see if they come from the asset store?

If so, they they are a bunch of hypocrites, imho. I could hire the same guy as you hire and end up with similar houses anyway. Or I could spend lots of time making all my own models and end up with a game that is pretty, but with little substance. What is a good game?

If they are keeping bad games off Steam with their vigil ante behaviors, then why do not the focus on art? That is such a small part of the game.

I would never submit my game to them...but I would ask here. I trust you guys. Besides, our audience is a niche group of players who probably care more about getting a game they want to play than about a few bits of used artwork.

 

UTTER WANKERY!

By their criteria I expect the secondary studio making the tock-year titles in Assassin's Creed's tick-tock releases by different teams wouldn't pass, because team B uses trees from SpeedTree, physics from whoever and the general engine and parkour/combat code from team A. All they are doing is adding a skin for the main character and writing a whole new story. So little effort! I think they even use stock Substances for a bunch of environment stuff!

A game could be using 50 code assets to save a year's worth of research and coding, and you'd have to decompile the game to even get a hint at their existence. Their service isn't reviewing games; it's just a new form of fascism.

 

I wonder how much they charge for this service.

 

Don't kill the messenger. Lol Seemed like there was some interest in "is this real?" and "what exactly is an asset flip". So I've spent some time investigating on YT and elsewhere online and this Guardians Steam group to find out the story.

I think they mean well or at least meant well but like I said originally above I *think* it is just one of those things where it all kind of grew and got a life of its own and now they literally perhaps see themselves as the Guardians of... well Indie games for sale in general.

Again this is my interpretation from reading here and there and checking out other YT folks making the videos as well as Jim. You check out enough content and you come across a name drop "hat's off to Jim Sterling who is doing just a tremendous job of bringing exposure to these people using assets", "Guardians has done a tremendous job of getting various so called game devs thrown off Steam", etc.

Doesn't mean I agree with it... just saying here is a bigger or closer look at it all. I actually think obviously there is some core truth to it... some... for people selling UnitZ asset "as is" as a game. But beyond that... no.

IMO they are focusing way too much on effort. A fundamental flaw because although many would love for it to be true a game is not (or should not be anyway) measured by how much effort went into it. A person could very well put a ton of effort into a game and it be terrible. Another person could use assets smart with a tight focus on scope and produce a highly enjoyable game. Focusing on effort is stupid. Life often does not reward the hard workers as well as it does the smart (lazy?) workers.

 

From what I read it is free. I agree they did miss a great opportunity. What a business plan. Form a large group, tear the hell out of games, then provide a service for a fee. Lol What a recipe. But again I think they really mean well but are just a little misguided.

 

I would say that's true, as long as you plan to put in custom animations, gestures and dialogue.

The problem is that in games, so much of the character presence is a visual/aesthetic suggestion rather than a question of behaviour or dialogue. Anything we 'know' about a character or creature has almost 100% to do with their appearance because usually the animations are generic walk/run/melee, there's no dialogue, there's not even some interesting camera angles to set them up in a certain character role. There's just the character 'skin' on top of a generic skeleton doing generic things.

I do think that it's a good and perfectly acceptable idea to re-use characters, but like in any movie, it's necessary to do a lot of work to create a different persona for them, with different clothes/style, different behaviours etc. Even if george clooney wore exactly the same outfit and style in every movie and delivered his entire dialogue from a tiresome repertoire of ten one-liners he would be providing a lot more variation than most game characters ever do, and I doubt people would see him the same way.

 

I think fascism might be a bit of an overstatement... just a tiny bit

Honestly, I don't see why people are hostile to groups like the one @GarBenjamin is talking about, or why many here seem to be hostile to Steam customers 'defending' against very low end games.

Asset flips are bad. Not because people say the word, but because they potentially burn customers.

When customers are burned they're less likely to try other low end games. This is why the refund policy was sooo important.

 

I think they are reacting to the extreme views of the people in the group. The whole "using 1 or 2 assets is okay". But no more. Their view seems to be if you use more than the absolute bare minimum then you are not making the game but someone else is.

It's like they are giving game devs an premade asset allowance of 2 items. If you stay within that budget then fine it is YOUR game. If you go above that budget is it NOT your game. This isn't talking about the game being good or bad... only about a game dev releasing a game as their creation when in fact they did not create it (if they used more than a couple of premade assets).

Basically I shared my findings to answer a question "what really is an asset flip?" For the people in this group it is a game using more than 1 or 2 premade assets. I think probably one could get away with 2 or 3 but for sure if using more than 2 to 3 premade assets your game is an asset flip. Again this is their way of thinking.

 

I am not hostile but not very trusting of an outside group with an agenda.

Here are my reasons:

First of all, not all gamers like the same games. So sending your game to them to review is very dangerous. If they do not like your type of game, then you will be saddled with bad reviews if you do not make the changes they suggest. Because, giving bad reviews is how they protect Steam and other Gamers from your game.

Second: If I put a game on Steam, I already will have to go through the paperwork and paying the fee. I will also be subjected to the fact that if people do not buy my game or give me good reviews, my game will fall to the bottom of the pile and be seen by less people. That is the consequence of making a game that is bad.

Third: If my game, which appeal to a niche group does well with my niche group because they care more about the aspects that are important to them that I put in the game, why does it matter if I have 2 or 20 asset models in my game? If people want to play it, why does a group have to attempt to eliminate a game before it has a chance because THEY do not like more than 1 or 2 assets.

There are many games already on steam that use Unity assets, some a lot that do well. They may not be superstars, but they are published and people are buying and reviewing them.

Not all games, even AAA, are going to be fabulous. Steam's system of bad games falling out of the search system has yet to be tried. I think we need to give it a chance.

Otherwise, there will be a lot of good games, especially niche games, that will be unable to get past the Steam vigil antes to publish their game.

Do you really trust these guys to make decisions about every genre and every niche game out there? Do you really think that they can make this decision for EVERY gamer out there? Is that fair?

I have no problem with them going after bad games, but that has nothing at all to do with 1 to 2 assets. It has more to do with using complete projects and demo scenes as games. It is a different issue. That they can have. I commend them if they deal with that issue, but I do not if they retaliate against anyone who uses more than 2 models in their game that come form the asset store.

 

Actually by that way of thinking I doubt any Indie game made in Unity (well except for people who make games like me using Unity like it is not Unity which is probably extremely few) is "legit". Using assets is kind of a way of life for Unity game devs isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if many games are using a dozen or more premade assets. Not sure if they count all of the non-visual premade assets though.

Basically what I get out of it is this. There are people who feel even using engines like Unity and GMS is cheating already. Laziness. And then to add on top of that premade assets then what are these game devs actually doing?

Obviously we know the answer can still be A LOT! If everyone was doing everything from scratch they would be making games like... well me basically. Games like 1980s and perhaps early to mid 90s. It's just a broken viewpoint.

But then I don't know maybe they would actually rate a Pac-Man scale game better and support it if it was made from scratch and criticize and try to eliminate a Skyrim scale game if it uses a lot of premade assets. Maybe. Not sure. But kind of makes sense.

No. Actually I do know. They are consistent. It is always about effort. They don't want tiny retro style games on Steam either AFAIK. Nor Mobile vame ports. Etc. What they want is for game devs to make quality fairly large games but you have to do the bulk of work yourself. From scratch. Very odd really and I think a lot of these have to be developers themselves to even look at it that way.

 

It's important to remember that gamers will have no idea how many assets a game might use. In most cases gamers will not even know what an 'asset' is and there probably isn't even agreement on what constitutes a single 'asset'.

BOOM Sound libraries for example are used widely across games, movies and tv. It's almost certain that everyone here has heard stock BOOM audio before, but it'd be almost impossible to identify them in most cases (especially since they tend to be used in higher end efforts like AAA blockbuster film).

I used this as an example before:


This is 100% asset store. The only way gamers would call this an asset flip is if the rest of the systems couldn't match the visuals. Or, the rest of the presentation wasn't on par.

One of the ways for a gamer to identify an 'asset flip' is when things feel uneven and bad. Overly polished graphics used out of place, control systems that feel terrible mixed with AAA environment, or general game play that's so uninspired that it's clear little effort went into it.

 

You're talking about something else. This group spends its time apparently actively digging and checking image by image to see if a game is an asset flip or not. Their focus seems to be on one main thing... did you make it or not? Period.

 

As an experiment, if I give them screenshots of my game - do you think they would call it an asset flip? It is 95% assets at the moment.

I'm confident they wouldn't be able to identify the assets or wouldn't feel that it was an "asset flip" despite almost complete reliance on asset store art.

 

I think it would be a hell of a great test to see how diligent they are although perhaps a risky one for you.