Why is using assets bought from Unity/Unreal store frowned upon?

[Ser_Kafka]

I was going to post this in HERE but thought it deserved it's own thread.

Now, to get it out of the way, there are some very egregious examples of asset flipping going on. I'm not here to discuss that.

What I would like to talk about is the 'middle ground' where a developer would purchase assets from the asset store and edit them to suit the dev's game. Like Wehle's The Last Tree.

It honestly grinds at me that someone who has never attempted to develop a game would backseat a dev in this way. Drawing - 2D, 3D, pixel art - is fucking hard. So why not purchase assets to help? How's it any different to hiring an artist, other than being cheaper?

The Last Tree got a ton of praise - and rightfully so - but I did read some negative comments for his use of store bought assets. Why? They'd throw a game and a dev under a bus because he used assets, whilst ignoring the direction, storytelling, programming (which also isn't fucking easy), just because hE dIdN't cReATe hIS oWn aRt.

And this isn't just about Wehle. I've seen and heard it all countless times before. People on YouTube dismissing a game because of the use of assets.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some are better programmers, some are a dab hand at art, some can create great music, and some might have a great talent for storytelling. So what's wrong with leaning into your strengths and seeking help in other areas? Even if that means using assets. Sick to my bank teeth of 'backseet game developers'.

 

[piratethingy]

It honestly grinds at me that someone who has never attempted to develop a game would backseat a dev in this way. Drawing - 2D, 3D, pixel art - is fucking hard. So why not purchase assets to help? How's it any different to hiring an artist, other than being cheaper?

Click to shrink...

This is how I feel about 90% of the "critique" I see on era. People who, like me, have little to no idea what they're talking about. It's like going onto ESPN and reading comments from librarians explaining what LeBron is doing wrong.

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

A large part of it comes down to cheap cashgrab games that were farted out en masse to profit on steam via trading card money (no really) after the fact poisoned the well. They've become synonymous with low effort garbage as a result and it's going to take a lot for people to shake that label.

 

[Glimpse_Dog]

It's ridiculous, especially considering asset sharing is just going to rise in prominence over the next few years.

 

[Aether]

Its not that its frowned upon. Its when its only assets, badly chosen assets (dont fit the game, bad quality,etc), generic assets, only assets, assets that doent fit together...

In other words: when you see that the person choosing the assets lacks tallent/time/ambition/knowledge in chosing and integrating them.

 

[Ganado]

I don't care as long as the assets are cohesive. It's when they clash that I generally ignore the game.

 

[boris_feinbrand]

it's the same bullshit mindset that is prevalent in the social media wannabe artists cesspit. People think there's some sort of virtue in creating everything yourself, regardless if it's good or not. These people aren't worth listening to as they are absolutely clueless and ignorant.
Hell I just learned that there are people that think using reference when drawing is cheating... like how can you be this bone headed.

For games it's a matter of practicality. Not having to model, UV unwrap, LOD, Materialize and optimize Assets is an insane timesaver.
Using pre made assets is also a tried and true method in movie making. Props and costumes aren't custom made every single time when possible.

 

[Radical Larry]

This is how I feel about 90% of the "critique" I see on era. People who, like me, have little to no idea what they're talking about. It's like going onto ESPN and reading comments from librarians explaining what LeBron is doing wrong.

Click to shrink...

Perfect. Most have no clue what they're talking about, especially in technical threads. Too many people have a less than surface level understanding of things and then draw ridiculous conclusions based on nonsense.

 

[Famassu]

The practice itself isn't frowned upon, it's the devs who just buy that stuff, put the least amount of effort into making something that barely works out of those alone and then releasing it into the world all buggy, glitchy & bad.

 

[johan]

As a Unity developer: buying assets from the asset store is fine. That's what it is for. I'd dismiss anyone's opinion if they think that's a problem.

Sure there's enough cheap trash Unity games that are a jumbled mess of bought assets but those are just bad games and are easy to pick out.

For what it's worth, plenty if not almost all Unity games use code bought on the asset store too, but you won't see this in the games because that's all purely under the hood. One of the most popular ones, Rewired, provides input for a plethora of gamepads plus more. Is that bad? No of course not. The cost of Rewired is less than one hour of my time and I save probably hundreds of hours in return. The same goes for visual assets.

 

[Strings]

I mean it's technically fine, but there's typically zero effort made to make the assets congruent with the world in the stuff that gets called out.

 

[ShinNoNoir]

I guess the issue is not really the use of existing assets, but whether the developer added any value on top of it.

 

[Dan Thunder]

Honestly I don't think your questions relate to the issues that people have with them.

 

[pksu]

People don't even notice it in many cases, just like CGI in modern movies/TV and it's completely fine. Sometimes it's really easy to spot though just like any bad/inconsistent art.

 

[Netherscourge]

There is nothing wrong with the engine.

Not all developers are created equal. Not all budgets are created equal.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I don't even think you should be expected to edit them. As long as everything fits together and nothing stands out as not matching, then you're good.

The expectation that video game assets have to be recreated over and over from nothing has always been ridiculous. Nobody expects movies/TV/theatre to throw out all their old props after every production, nor do they expect them to created from scratch in the first place (buying a table from Ikea is fine, even desirable).

 

[Urishizu]

As a Unity developer: buying assets from the asset store is fine. That's what it is for. I'd dismiss anyone's opinion if they think that's a problem.

Sure there's enough cheap trash Unity games that are a jumbled mess of bought assets but those are just bad games and are easy to pick out.

For what it's worth, plenty if not almost all Unity games use code bought on the asset store too, but you won't see this in the games because that's all purely under the hood. One of the most popular ones, Rewired, provides input for a plethora of gamepads plus more. Is that bad? No of course not. The cost of Rewired is less than one hour of my time and I save probably hundreds of hours in return. The same goes for visual assets.

Click to shrink...

This. All of my games are in Unity as well and assets like Rewired have literally saved me tens of hours (if not more) as I've released games on PC and consoles (with more consoles on the way). Things like controller management is something that makes zero sense for you to code from the ground up - there simply isn't a return on investment there and honestly the guy who made Rewired did a far better job than I think a majority of coders would have done.

There really shouldn't be a stigma if developers are using assets in good faith to make the games they want to make. It's usually trivial to filter out someone purely using assets to just release a cash grab with no effort, and I imagine those titles likely did not sell many units.

 

[Iztok]

Depends.
If you entire game is an asset flip, then what are you even doing.

If you do a game well, however, people shouldn't even notice there's prefabs in them.

 

[Black_Stride]

Megascans is a godsend.
I think its excellent and lets smaller studios make really high quality stuff in a relatively short amount of time....and or really punch much higher than their weight class.

Plagues Tale used MegaScans and that game looks phenomenal.

From Plague Tale devs:
"Megascans enabled us to achieve top-notch realistic renderings much more quickly than if we had to do it one by one and by ourselves."

 

[Strings]

I don't even think you should be expected to edit them. As long as everything fits together and nothing stands out as not matching, then you're good.

The expectation that video game assets have to be recreated over and over from nothing has always been ridiculous. Nobody expects movies/TV/theatre to throw out all their old props after every production, nor do they expect them to created from scratch in the first place (buying a table from Ikea is fine, even desirable).

Click to shrink...

When asked why he was green-screening the San Francisco skyline even though he could film on an actual rooftop there, Tommy replied: "This no Mickey Mouse production. I want to be professional."

Click to shrink...

The exorbitant budget of The Room ($6m) is mostly a result of Tommy Wiseau wanting everything to be custom made because he had the misconception that was how Hollywood worked.

 

[Kthulhu]

Because of asset flips. I've definitely played a few Indies that are poorly optimized pieces of trash that use store assets.

It's basically a massive red flag. There are games like Vanishing Realms that use store assets yet are beloved. If you make a good game most people won't care the assets are store bought, but that's not really common.

 

[BassForever]

The issue as I always saw it presented isn't people buy some assets from the unity store. It's when people do nothing BUT buy assets from the unity store, dump them in a unity bought game engine, then dump them on steam as an original game.

 

[Phellps]

It's okay, of course. But here's why people think it's not:



It's not his only video on this, and they got pretty popular. And, of course, not being able to differentiate a scam using store assets and an actual game.

 

[Darkstorne]

Depends how extensively store assets are used. If the entire game is comprised of them, then you can end up with a mish-mash of different artist's styles, so it stands out really badly. And there are instances when even when it's a cohesive art style across all assets, they can be so recognizable that it detracts from the game itself (the reason RPG Maker games have such a bad rap - the vast majority of devs stick to the stock assets or the same community shared creations, rather than creating something unique).

It can be done very well, and frequently is. It's just that when it's done well, you don't notice it. You mostly only notice store bought assets when it's handled poorly, hence the reputation.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

It's only frowned upon by people who don't really know what they're talking about.

"Asset flips" are one thing, and have given "store-bought" assets a bad rep, but in reality developers from all stretches (from indie to AAA) use store-bought assets for different stages of their products.

Speedtree is used in AAA all the time. Non-user facing plugins are used etc.

Don't be afraid to use them!

 

[TheEchosOfTheCyborg]

A large part of it comes down to cheap cashgrab games that were farted out en masse to profit on steam via trading card money (no really) after the fact poisoned the well. They've become synonymous with low effort garbage as a result and it's going to take a lot for people to shake that label.

Click to shrink...

And the fact that with Unity, the free and lower budget versions of it the asset flipper used were the ones that show the Unity logo meaning people were only seeing the Unity logo with those type of games and not the many high quality and professional ones out their.

 

[LelouchViBritannia]

Great thread.

Buying assets is fine and encouraged. You cant do everything alone

The only people who have a problem with this are those who will never develop anything and spend their time criticising everybody else

 

[toy_brain]

The only problem is when the base asset has been stolen / acquired without the consent of the originator, which does happen (y'all remember that TequilaWorks thread about a tree a few months back, right?). Otherwise its fine, and as long as everything looks like it fits in the same universe, then there isn't a problem.

No point in asking an artist to continually re-invent the flowerpot if you already have a bunch made.

 

[TheEchosOfTheCyborg]

It's okay, of course. But here's why people think it's not:



It's not his only video on this, and they got pretty popular. And, of course, not being able to differentiate a scam using store assets and an actual game.

Click to shrink...

Jim himself would later do a contest where those involved would use the spider-head asset (one of the most flipped store bought ones) and use it to create something different and original to show how talent is an asset and the different between asset flippers and actual artists and developers (I remember the winner was able to make an entire game out of it).

 

[Deleted member 44371]

I started learning Unreal Engine and was suprised to see how people hate on other people using free assets even though their games are amazing, but somehow buying assets on the marketplace is alright?! im so happy epic gives out so much free assets every month, helps me create levels und prototypes much faster

 

[ThreepQuest64]

It is frowned upon? oO

I think it's fine and see little difference between pre-made assets and assets your third-party Asian company do for you, which happens often within the AAA sector. The only difference is one asset is specifially made for you (but who knows to whom third party developer give their assets, too) and the other one is accessible by everyone else and might appear in their game the exact same way if you/they don't alter and fit them.

Not everyone has the budget and/or man-power to create assets by themselves, so it's fine. They were made for this kind of service.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

I blame older indie developers/modders.
When pre made assets were first made widely available you had so many older heads bemoaning the fact newer indie devs didn't have to make all their assets like they had to even though most of them either looked like shit or were heavily plagiarized.
Meanwhile there are AAA GOTY contenders right now that have asset store items in them and barely anyone notices it.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Expectations entering the thread:
• Examples of high-quality assets
• Examples of poor-quality assets
• Examples of the games where assets are working seamlessly
• Examples of the games where art cohesion and quality is horrible
• Some kind of cost - benefit consideration
• Discussion about other pre-made assets like textures, sounds or icons

This thread:
• Bad faith poll
• Terrible broad generalizations "People", "Comments" which no way reflect the majority
• Two game names without any graphics or pinpoints to enable the discussion
• The self-righteous claims that people have no idea what they are talking about

 

[Cyberclops]

When I finally make my game, it's gonna be full of store assets and it'll be beautiful. I promise that I'll make the music myself though lol

 

[EarthPainting]

Asset stores are fine, and useful, and more games make use of them than you probably realise. This will only become more common in the age of photogrammetry. Anyway, I think people have a few problems with their use.

• An obvious one is that pre-made assets are obviously not going to be tailor-made for your game's art direction. Too many clashing elements can turn into a muddied aesthetic.
• There's the familiarity problem too, where you might recognise shared assets across different games. This can come from very overt things like character models, to something as innocuous as textures. Personally I'm already starting to recognise Quixel Megascan assets across different games, and I don't see its usage to lessen any time soon.
• Finally, there's the biggest one, which is that people associate them with asset flips and scams. Projects that just buy a bunch of assets, slap 'em into templates or tutorials, and sell them en-masse on Steam for trading cards. This problem even extends to entire engines sometimes, where some folks just associate Unity with iffy cashgrabs. Unfortunate for legitimate developers.

 

[Powerofthecloud]

There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing else to discuss.

 

[Lukemia SL]

The Last of Us 2 and Metro Exodus use Quixel. I don't have a problem with those. The stock looking assets are what i frown upon

 

[Sprat]

For me it's like sampled music. If you aren't talented or motivated enough to write your own you aren't a musician

 

[Tygre]

"Asset Flips" got a bad name because they tended to be badly made and barely playable games populated with free assets.

This negative association then started to spread and mutate in a completely nonsensical (but extremely human) way, to where any game using non-unique assets is somehow assumed to be shitty, or that using non-unique assets is somehow lazy or wrong.

Part of this is down to irresponsible reporting and commentary (I like Jim, but he went overboard at points and he knows it), part of it is due to people being raging idiots and not understanding what they're really even mad at (wow, weird, never seen that before), and part of it is due to genuinely extremely shitty cash grabs made in bad faith by bad actors giving asset reuse a bad name.

For me it's like sampled music. If you aren't talented or motivated enough to write your own you aren't a musician

Click to shrink...

The fuck is this?



This guy isn't a musician?

 

[Wispmetas]

Using bought assets are related to subpar and quickly thrown together games to make a quick buck. Asset flipping is the term I think.

This of course gives a bad image to people that actually make good games and just happen to use bought assets.

For me it's like sampled music. If you aren't talented or motivated enough to write your own you aren't a musician

Click to shrink...

So for you a REAL gamedev is someone that can do it all? Code, make great art, compose the music and such?

 

[Sprat]

"Asset Flips" got a bad name because they tended to be badly made and barely playable games populated with free assets.

This negative association then started to spread and mutate in a completely nonsensical (but extremely human) way, to where any game using non-unique assets is somehow assumed to be shitty, or that using non-unique assets is somehow lazy or wrong.

Part of this is down to irresponsible reporting and commentary (I like Jim, but he went overboard at points and he knows it), part of it is due to people being raging idiots and not understanding what they're really even mad at (wow, weird, never seen that before), and part of it is due to genuinely extremely shitty cash grabs made in bad faith by bad actors giving asset reuse a bad name.



The fuck is this?



This guy isn't a musician?

Click to shrink...

Not really he's an arranger.

 

[cowbanana]

It's a great deal more nuanced than the poll indicates, so I just voted no as a cover all answer.

 

[Sprat]

Using bought assets are related to subpar and quickly thrown together games to make a quick buck. Asset flipping is the term I think.

This of course gives a bad image to people that actually make good games and just happen to use bought assets.



So for you a REAL gamedev is someone that can do it all? Code, make great art, compose the music and such?

Click to shrink...

No obviously the artists do the art musicians do music etc. But it should be their own work or at the bare minimum an initiation of what's been used.

Using the same thing stock just shows a lack of creativity.

 

[Hentailover]

A large part of it comes down to cheap cashgrab games that were farted out en masse to profit on steam via trading card money (no really) after the fact poisoned the well. They've become synonymous with low effort garbage as a result and it's going to take a lot for people to shake that label.

Click to shrink...

This. People wouldn't even really pay attention to the practice much if not for all the asset flips.

 

[Tygre]

Not really he's an arranger.

Click to shrink...

No obviously the artists do the art musicians do music etc. But it should be their own work or at the bare minimum an initiation of what's been used.

Using the same thing stock just shows a lack of creativity.

Click to shrink...

Creating a new composition or arrangement of existing elements is artistry just as much as plucking a few strings on a guitar or swiping a few brushstrokes on a canvas.

Unless you think a guitarist should make her own guitar to be considered a musician, or a painter mix their own paint to be considered an artist?

 

[jett]

I don't see a single issue in using asset libraries.

 

[Suicide King]

I think it's a problem when it's too obvious, when people notice, or when the entire game is designed around these assets and have nothing original. Buying licenses and using generic assets is very common with some stuff (fonts, sound effects, particles, etc), so it's not like every big developer makes everything from scratch.

 

[Deleted member 11370]

For me it's like sampled music. If you aren't talented or motivated enough to write your own you aren't a musician

Click to shrink...

Not really he's an arranger.

Click to shrink...

By your same logic, if you write your own music you're not a musician, you're a composer or a songwriter.

It's as if the term "musician" *gasp* included a variaty of related, but not necessarily equal, number of disciplines related to music, including writing, arranging and performing such music.

What I really mean is that your argument is pure nonesense, not to mention it reeks of elitism.

 

[Noisepurge]

It's totally fine, and most of the time we won't even notice. It just has a bad rap due to those games made entirely of random assets so it all looks disjointed.

 

[Sprat]

Creating a new composition or arrangement of existing elements is artistry just as much as plucking a few strings on a guitar or swiping a few brushstrokes on a canvas.

Unless you think a guitarist should make her own guitar to be considered a musician, or a painter mix their own paint to be considered an artist?

Click to shrink...

You are just being ridiculous now but the painters I know do actually mix their own paint and I build my own guitars but no of course that's not a necessity.

I just think that they should actually write our on the case of medleys actually perform/rerecord the parts themselves rather than just lifting the original.