Why are game assets so cheap?

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
1

Hi

This is not blender specific question but seems it’s ‘blender and CG’ discussion, wanted to ask some question here.

When I browse game asset store, they sell a ton of objects for 10-50$, not if free.
and I see commercial/architecture designers sell their work for at least hundreds/thousands bucks for one project.

Both take time and effort to produce a result. Though commercial ad/archi work would take more time because of rendering and client meeting.

But why are game assets so cheap? It’s like they are working for free.

Is making game asset much easier than ad/architecture work?
Or those people just make things for practicing sake? to prepare their own game in future?

2

I would guess volume. Game assets probably move more copies.

3

Honestly? Because arch firms often don’t have very technical artists and will pay more. In many cases, especially with modern consoles, the assets between the two aren’t substantially different, and in many cases it actually takes more time to set up materials for the game assets. It’s not a big deal though because you’re far more likely to sell a lot of units for, say, a game foliage pack than you are for an arch foliage pack. Which isn’t exactly to say that you’re going to sell a lot of units for either, because the markets for both are beyond saturated.

4

No, indie game development on some platforms is a race to the bottom,

for photo real models, there is now a few systems that can scan 3d data, skin it, retopo and bake maps, like google’s project tango…

‘realisitc’ art has become quite simple, where as style is a thing that needs to be manifested, realism can be captured.

How much is 5 minutes worth of scanning worth?

Hiring a artist to complete a whole game is great,
buying piecemeal from asset stores is game-a-cide in my opinion,

5

Pretty easy to answer.

  1. Anyone who is capable to make a cube in Blender or other 3d app starts to sell game assets for cents, killing the competition.

  2. Anyone who is a wannabe game maker with the same skills buys these - more or less - unusable assets as they check only the price.

  3. Typically asset makers for both market sell their stuff without the right to sell them from the license holders, but for game assets it is supported by the marketplaces (happens with the knowledge of the marketplace owners).

  4. People are not too good in math and with calculation their hourly rate, so they buy the asset for 50 USD instead of 100, then spend 2 days with enhancing it to the same level the 100 USD asset was by default.

  5. Archviz is for pros mostly who got paid for their time. They could do the math, what is very simple: if it would take me 100 USD (with my hourly rate) to model it and it costs 99 USD, then I earned an extra dollar.

6

“for photo real models, there is now a few systems that can scan 3d data, skin it, retopo and bake maps, like google’s project tango…”

Game assets require a lots of additional work and different topology mostly.

“‘realisitc’ art has become quite simple, where as style is a thing that needs to be manifested, realism can be captured.

How much is 5 minutes worth of scanning worth?”

How much the scanner, app license and additional work costs? And still, typically the 3d scanned assets I see are far from ideal.

"Hiring a artist to complete a whole game is great, buying piecemeal from asset stores is game-a-cide in my opinion"

It depends on the assets. Not just freelancers make assets; is SpeedTree a game-a-cide?

7

Mark my words, soon stylized will be worth more money then photoreal, once the production of photoreal becomes trivial.

8

I don’t think so. Topology, optimazitaion matters.
Not mentioning that with scanning real objects you could easily break copyright rules.

9

You can’t scan laser rifles, M8A1s,Type 25s can you?

Because they’re not real.

It would be very very rare for a game to be built entirely out of scanned objects or even be 50% scanned objects

You could say that star wars battlefront did it

but I suspect that it’s part of the reason there’s no space combat.

10

agreed, think of carpenters, once a craftsman used hand tools to create furniture, once machinery was able to reach a certain level of quality, a craftsman’s value was reduced unless his product was recognized as far superior or he focused on artistically unique items.

Photo-real is the new Ikea bookshelf,

11

As a young teenager I first got into 3D by making game assets for fun and putting them online for free. (worldcraft shipped with Half Life 1… I was terrible but it was a good time for me.)

They are really 2 different markets. Game assets only need to be low-poly and don’t need to look really real. Architectural assets need to look good beyond 4K resolution and will be used by professionals usually working on million dollar project (if not $10MM+… building a museum or apartment block is not cheap) s. It’s a rare game that knows it will gross a million dollars before it’s even done. Those games usually can afford to build their own assets… so you see why the prices might be lower…

12

'Game assets only need to be low-poly and don’t need to look really real. ’

It depends. ‘Real’ - if we do not talk about ‘stylized’ stuff - is a compromise and results different outcome in assets for mobile gaming and assets for desktop.

‘Architectural assets need to look good beyond 4K resolution’

Wrong. Archviz assets should look realistic (shading, sizes, etc.), that is all.

‘and will be used by professionals usually working on million dollar project’

Wrong. People use archviz assets for work to earn money and it does not depends on the size of the project. It is about saving money, saving time and works both for studios with big projects and freelancers with simple tasks.

‘building a museum or apartment block is not cheap’

It has nothing to do with archviz assets at all. Archviz assets typically are furniture, vegetation, products, etc, not museum blocks or apartment blocks. Forget blocks overall; that is gaming.