How can I make my "Human" asset store package more appealing? (It's not selling, and idk why)

Mostly reiterating some great points by others and adding a few thoughts:

Content:

• + I think the body types are fine, especially for people looking for PC models. More body types would be a nice plus, but you can't do everything, and I think focusing future effort in other areas will be more beneficial.
• + The outfits look great.
• - Content-wise, the biggest opportunity for improvement are the faces. Faces are the most important part of a human character, and eyes are the most important part of the face. The characters have dead, blank stares, and porcelain skin. The Beggars pack and the Witcher picture are good case studies. Those faces are worn in, and they have expressions. This is the big challenge of human models versus monsters. We expect to just hack through monsters, but we expect personality and narrative potential from humans.

Marketing:

• + I really like the action shots. The blank faces do them a disservice, though.
• - Notice the key image in the Beggars pack focuses on their faces. They look like they've seen stuff, and they have stories to tell.
• - Lead with an action video, maybe quickly going through variations of characters. Put the "how to" videos after the action video.
• - Tweak the pack name to make it more exciting, e.g., along the lines of "Customizable Barbarian Heroes Pack" or something.

 

Daz stuff isn't game ready, though -- if I'm not mistaken you can't just bring them into Unity and throw on Mixamo animations. If I was allowed to take them, make them game ready, and sell the add-on value, I'd probably try to do that ,because some of their stuff is pretty good, and they do have the customization options.

___

From what I saw even with the DAZ commercial license you can't re-sell the stuff, or even include the clothing / bodies as in-game purchases. Which seems odd for many freemium markets. Either way, using DAZ for my purposes is out of the question

___

If the Morph tool works on all models, then that'll be a "must buy" for many users, and I could simply point them to that. Even better if I can take the result and include them in my package, so there are a few variations by default. I am probing some contacts to see if I can hire someone to build some system for me that can do this -- basically UMA similar but without having to go back to the models. I've looked into UMA multiple times but I still don't understand how to set it up, and from what I gather it definitely requires a modeler on board.

____

Thanks Tony!

 

Looking at the Morph page (https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/45805), the first video I noticed they don't show the face too much -- I think 2 times only? Their faces look nice, but they're also stuck in a static pose.

I'm guessing we all "face" the same problem: There are no good facial animation packages. I'd love to make some.

 

Did they say in which year? There's more than one June.

 

Man -- I'm making a new texture set with dirty, worn out clothing & somewhat dirty skin. Using a new editor script I made that copies settings from one section to others, so I only have to adjust the metal on the helmet, and all other metal parts match and so on. that part is working great.

But the more I think about things -- about what everyone has said here, and about the potential for Morph3d to come out with a tool that lets people morph models in the editor (God I hope it works with all models not just theirs!), I realize I may have gone about this the wrong way.

Who knows Maybe it's just late and it's been a long day of pretty boring work re-doing these procedural materials to work with this new tool.

OH WELL! Thanks again for your help everyone!

 

From what I understand the tool was more to let you convert items like clothing or weapons to work with their base models, not so much running a tool that lets you morph models yourself. The idea behind this was you pay $100 for the male and female bases, and then you can either buy more add on packs from Morph3D that are guaranteed to work with them, or you can ask a creator to run their assets through the tool and make them compatible.

I do think the procedural and modular approach you have been taking is a huge plus for you. Assuming this tool works as planned, I think that's where you strike. UMA has maybe a handful of people creating content for the system but it is largely just static that won't vary from game to game.

At the end of the day you still needed the human for your own game though right? I wouldn't call that a waste.

 

@sfbaystudios at the end of the day, there's still plenty of potential for improving the marketing, and you can always drop the price to something that, while it might not be what you think it's worth, may bring in enough sales to match the cost eventually.

Since this is your first humans pack, if I were you I would consider dropping the price very low for a while to get some sales/feedback and ratings, and in the meantime try to find out what your customers want in terms of additions or changes.

There's definitely something going on that's making it hard to sell characters on the store, that's why I avoided them myself. It's going to be much more useful to you to use this product to get information for your business, rather than let it sit around not getting bought, or spend time making additions/changes that are not driven by customer feedback.

 

Yeah, I'd be OK with that too.

I mean -- the real reason I'm doing any of this is because I want to make this epic game, but need models for it and want to have more control over the look and quality of them For humans, I wanted a system where any character can equip "plate armor", and have it show on their body. That doesn't exist right now as far as I know in the store -- since armor needs to conform to the body and the animations.

If Morph3D requires us to us their base bodies -- well those are modular enough to make any look, so long as the skin tones can change (And I think they can, since they show some green goblin like things). As long as I can create what doesn't exist already ,and then try to make the money I spent back on the asset store, then I'll be happy

I just figure it may make more sense now for me to go back to the modeler and get a version of the human that's treated more like any of the other characters, rather than one that's designed to have add-on clothing. Maybe it'd make more sense to have a "Knight" package have completely different body shapes and heads that aren't compatible with the "Barbarian" package.

I'm not sure For now, nothing will change, since I won't be too quick to make another human package until this one gets more users. 6 sales isn't enough

 

Working on ways of showing the variety of wardrobe. Here's a couple GIFs I've made. [Edit: I'll put more up. If anything is terrible, or anything is spot on, please let me know ]

 

Wow, I would have had no idea that any of that was possible. And in the top image, those clothes look a lot more realistic to me. I still think the guy needs a little more character or something, but if you showed this sort of stuff on the main page I think things would go a lot better for you.

 

http://www.infinitypbr.com/RPGBarbarianPack/bodies2.jpg

 

Facial animations would probably help a TON. I chose the "Idle Break" animation because the blank face kind of works during it

I would also like a better hair shader. I got help from the forums to make a 2-sided shader, so the hair uses two materials; that and a standard shader material, so there can be some texture and blending. It still isn't great, however.

 

QUESTION: How misleading is it to use Lightroom to process the images? In theory many of the "cinematic" processing assets (Plus the new 5.4 stuff Unity is making!!) could accomplish similar things. But I'm very comfy w/ lightroom and I really like the artsy looks I can get from it. Would you guys be annoyed if an asset used post-processed images? Not ALL of the images, but one or two?



Vs original just in Unity w/ only Bloom and Depth of Field...

 

If I am buying a product, I expect to see how it looks in Unity. If you're going to create an image in another product or with special addon-ons that are beyond base Unity, that should be clearly noted in those images.

I'd go so far as to say that I am more likely to buy a model package if in addition to some nicely lit and rendered scenes to show off the beauty of the package, there are also images that just show the textured models with basic lighting so I can really tell what I'm getting into. The "click to preview" doesn't always work so well on the Asset Store.

I will admit this is more important in something like scenery or set pieces where there may be dozens or even hundreds of objects. But one thing I've liked in several character or monster packages I've seen is either a split image or series of images where it shows fully lit, basic light, and wireframe all together so that I can get a real visual understanding.

 

Like this? I think I like the smaller, square one better. However I'm using the highest LODs for these, so maybe it's not the best wireframe example? What are you looking for when you see the wireframe?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Asset Store images were rendered or post-processed elsewhere such as Unreal or Lightroom -- after all, many modelers don't sell exclusively on the Unity Asset Store. But if you can achieve similar effects with Unity, that's even better for potential Unity customers, and it also gives you a chance to play around with effects in preparation for your own game. I bet you can use Unity to render something really close to that Lightroom image.

In any case, I really like the GIFs and the grid-style static images of variations. Can you slow down the GIF a bit? It's a little too fast for me to be able to appreciate each variation.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty positive the Morph3D main images are photoshopped! There's a chance that none of the images were actually from unity on theirs.

I'm currently making a ton of potential store images. I really wish the store allowed A/B testing! I'll see about how I can make maybe put them up here cleanly to get feedback on what you guys think customers would respond to the most. However,r I'm happy with the result and very glad I started this thread, and that you guys have all participated.

 

To me this image is killer, every one of these variations looks great, and shows the full figure. If I saw that on the store, and it fit my game, I would be sorely tempted.

 

If it's done inside unity and either comes with the pack or is properly disclosed in the screenshot I think it's ok. You should try to make a LUT for what you tweaked in Lightroom and add that to the package. I would not be in favor of external processing of assetstore screenshots, try to get it to look good in engine, that's what matters.

 

I don't believe that post-processed shots inside Unity should have to be specified as such, as long as the post package was Unity's own.

Definitely yes if it was rendered in a different program.

 

One problem with people releasing models on the asset store is that you really need to release a lot because styles can be quite different.
One thing you might consider doing is converting the skins and clothing to UMA, there's a bunch of us that purchase the various fantasy/medieval UMA models whenever they come out. Doing this will give you a bigger market because there will be other models with a consistent style to use with them.

 

Which one do you like most? Clearly I have my favorite models, but which do you think is most. Or are they all off?

http://www.infinitypbr.com/RPGBarbarianPack/webLarge/index.html
http://www.infinitypbr.com/RPGBarbarianPack/webMed/index.html
http://www.infinitypbr.com/RPGBarbarianPack/webSmall/index.html

 

I've looked into this, and it's likely above my pay grade at the moment, as I"ve not been able to figure it out (I'm not the modeler or animator ,and that could be why). Theres talk of other, better alternatives potentially coming out with MOrph3d soon. But who knows! I'm also talking w/ one of the people I work with about testing blend shapes, to see what we can accomplish with that.

 

Morph3d is really good, of course. But it's also very resource intensive. UMA also has higher poly models and skins than the defaults, as well as some Alternates by JustB.
Anyway, it would take a modeler to be able to do the conversion, but no animation skills are necessary.

As for the pictures you've posted, I like #4 the best, but it's probably not a good advertisement for the model set, as it only shows the one guy. The second image is probably the best for that, but it does have a clipping issue on the main female - her chest cover is clipping into her arm.

 

Oh good eye! I didn't notice that. From another angle, there's clipping on her hand / dagger.

 

I like #6 slightly better than #4, but they're both good as close-ups to complement the variations image that Billy4184 and I like.

 

I made new group shots. I could do this all night I think. Well, no, I'd get bored soon enough. But it's a rabbit hole, you know? Just go deeper and deeper.

 

I tried. I would love to have those clothes in my game. They are spectacular!

I think though, that he doesn't want to convert the clothing to UMA but wants to use his own models, which would be a nice option, but it would not allow us to use his clothes along with the ones we already have. So..he would have to catch up with Will to compete.

I would be surprised if 3d morph allows people to use their own models. They make their money from selling their models and clothing. Anything they release will be a tool to make clothes for their models and to sell on their store. They are connected to DAZ, sister companies.

Secret Anorak has great videos on rigging in 3d Max and hopefully soon in Maya. It isn't that difficult to do. I can even do it. Making slots and overlays is now very easy and again, SA has videos. Jaimi's recipe tool has made it easy to create wardrobes. UMA isn't quite as mysterious anymore.

 

None of it has clicked for me yet I'll ask my modeler again -- if I had only one chance to send him ONE resource on it, for him to understand how to do it, what would that resource be?

 

Top one looks good, bottom one has too much empty space on the right.

Are you going to hire one of us or what?

ps I think the main thing for the key images (esp the icon/small) is to make sure it shows more than one, it's not necessary to try to show too much but just make sure it's obvious at a glance that it's not simply one character. Something like the head/chest of your best one, along with another head visible over each shoulder, should do the job.

 

It's not the best example I've seen, but the third picture for MCS Male Elf shows the base model with no fancy lighting and then the various LODs available in the package. (It was just the first one I could find that was close to what I was thinking.)

The wireframe you sampled in your post is too busy. You don't need to wireframe every variation of the model. Just one model will show off the level of detail for those who are interested in it.

As a fairly straightforward example, look at this Soldier asset. One picture showing the soldier in high detail (though that image could be zoomed in better). One picture set back with a bunch of variations. One picture close-in with wireframe.

The Assault Character Pack does a good job of displaying faces, full body, and then the wireframe so the customer can see the level of model detail. With your barbarians, some action shots may be preferable to purely "standing there" type poses for the soldiers though.

 

Secret Anorak's videos, especially the last part on UMA content. There are 6 videos that use 3dMax to rig the clothing. They are excellent.

I love Will's stuff but it would be nice to have other content creators out there.

Also, there is a UMA slack channel. If you artist wants to join, he/she can send me his/her email and I can put them on the channel. It is a nice place to ask for help.

Forgot the link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjIhCVu3eN5qLAX7H9Uo6jg

 

I think it would be better to have a functional "what you get" frontal view of 30 character variations or so, rather than a seedy Larp nightclub venue. I think people need to work out that if you can generate 20-30 variations and it costs 50 bucks, it's good value, even if its colour changes. So that's a good start.

When you go to buy food, the food is clearly on display even though the label might be fancy. People need to see the food too.

One issue with the above is it doesn't look very current gen - it looks dated and it's 99% likely it's the shader and lighting. I find it jaw dropping you don't even have antialiasing going on. Your users would.

Come on, deep down you know how to sell. You dress it up in the best possible light, giving it the best possible chance

 

And more variety in the faces. If I am making a game with 5 npcs and a player, I want them to look different from each other, and not just clothing color and hair.

 

For me it looks like the eyes kinda ruin it. I dont know why, everything else looks great (except possibly improved skin and hairs shading) but the eyes just look, unnatural

 

As a outsider in the market for a good Character model solution it simply comes down to this:

* What is the potential support i can get from this addon. This applies to every addon but even more for character models. Because most addon's you can buy and keep using. Maybe bug fix or find a alternative. With character models it becomes more difficult when your clothing etc are designed around this character model. The more scripts in any addon the more change for trouble down the road.

* Then comes the clothing issue... a point that most character creators simply get wrong. Releasing a character creator or base model is one thing. But a lot of us are not graphical designers and we do not have the time to keep making separate pieces of clothing for characters.

The fact that most character models use full body clothing ( no separate shoes, pants, etc ), heavily reduces the amount of potential choices.

- UMA is probably the most universal supported but despite that the amount of separate clothing assets is frankly little.

- Morph3d has a great look to them but again all there addon's are full body clothing sets ( except for there base model ). They are supposed to release separate clothing in the future but yea ... We all know that in the future can be months or years from now ( or never ).

- A quick look at the Human Asset and there are for me several things i noticed very fast:

* No free to try base model. That already makes it more difficult to test in your own game environment if the game fits and how much trouble the scripts are.

* The price for the base model. Too much ... sorry. If you did a base model + basic separate clothing. And then a bunch of clothing packs that keep getting added more & more. Bingo ... a good business model. A good base model + massive amount of clothing / armor etc options makes it possible for game developers, to get unique looking characters in there game, without wasting massive amounts of time doing it them selves.

* Competition. Again your are going against UMA & Morph3d... From a quick glance i see nothing that stands out compared to the competition.

* Plastic look ... Maybe its just me but they look so shiny under several screenshots. Almost like ARK: Survival Evolved. I frankly hate how the character models look like plastic. I noticed the same problem with some of the monster packs. They look unrealistically clean / perfect. That look will not be a problem in a isometric game with some distance but from a FPS game style where you get close & personal it feels imperfect. That look works best for some Science fiction assets like robots or something that needs to look clean / perfect.

* Animation ... they look too much mechanical like.

* The model look unreal. Its not the uncanny human effect but the simple combination of elements ( animation, skin, positions, animation etc ). This is something that morph3d does better. Especially with there customization.

But in simple terms. First the price is a issue because just basing on what you see can result in a quick buy that one later regret.

Then there is the lack of real character addon's. Its not like its hard to get characters... The store has plenty and one can get a lot from other sources also ( if you take the time to convert them ). Its mostly the eco system around them. Morph3d has the right idea but they are too slow.

Please do not give up hope... a lot of those issue can be fixed and improved but this was a quick rundown why i don't considered this package.

Well, this got quickly longer then expected. In all honesty, i think there is more money to be made by selling separate clothing pieces ( for a reasonable price ) that fit UMA/Morph3d then your own character models. Something where people get the base model and can simply buy more clothing / armor / ... for there characters as they progress is way more money maker, then trying to sell a base item.

 

As some said it. The eyes. I think they're too pale, and regardless of what color I think they're lacking in saturation. You can try darker eyes, or different or same color, just give them a bit more saturation. Also what hippocoder said about the skin and antialising.

 

I opted to not change the eyes in the samples. However, they're just like the rest, fully customizable. I really wish the store would allow animated GIFs or vine-like videos that'll play and loop. I'm not convinced many people actually watch the YouTube videos (based on my view count, they most certainly do not), and there's really no good way to show that it's not just a set of different colors but ANY color, and often way more than even just that.

 

My bad... I tend to skim through assets. Maybe others do too? I don't know about youtube though. On our Turret System, I get about the same number of views on the youtube videos as I do on purchases. A bit more views ofc. But thats a script asset, and the only way you'll get info on a script asset is through a video explanation. I think most are considering yours as only an art asset (I know its not just that), and look for that info in screenshots only. For 3D art I try using sketchfab for our stuff. Its easier, but also gives more info to people considering buying it. xD

 

How many asset store page views vs youtube views? Because it could be you're counting youtube but not actually driving people to the asset store page so they'd see it to begin with....

If they are coming to the page it means they're leaving the page before they bother to watch vids. If I am not interested in an asset I don't watch the vid. But if I am interested in an asset I watch the vid right away. Not that your vid clearly shows much what I would get, only that I have to do a hell of a lot of clicking....

Regarding naming:

Human Base + Barbarian Pack PBR

To someone with a good grasp of english language nuances, we can figure out it's a base model with some barbarian style props. Problem is, that's probably 10% of your customers. It's meaninglessly random what people will interpret it as.

Barbarian? What is that? a savage? does it even have clothes? what is a pack? Human Base? is it a town or base of some kind? you see, you're not really using terms that mean the same thing to enough people. On top of this, it's very, VERY unexciting. Asset store purchases are like most purchasing habits: generally, it's going to get the most sales from impulse buys.

Mod Human with free Fantasy clothing pack
UCH + Barbarian Theme

(Ultimate Configurable Human) and so on... I get why you want search terms in the title, but I'm not sure you're going to stand out in a search for PBR - it's likely going to be far too broad. Better to put 100% PBR calibrated textures! as a bullet point.

These are just some issues you might face. In an ideal world, the quality of the product will sell the product. In the real world, that doesn't quite happen, with inferior brands often easily winning out in sales.

 

I can attest this. I immediately saw a rise in sales after redoing all the promotional artwork for my asset and reworking the description

 

You guys are over complicating the hell out of this. The problem is that the models just aren't appropriate to most games, they are so heavily stylized that the use cases are very narrow.

The stuff that sells the best in the asset store is the most thematically agnostic. There is a ton of 'theme' in these models. They are not generic characters.

They're really only appropriate for player controlled characters, and many games wouldn't want the kind of perfect, flawless adam and eve style characters here. Look at your profile avatar, that's the kind of 'generic' action hero that is usable in many games. Even if you don't think of your characters as being stylized, they are immensely so.

In terms of generic use - they would probably be best as like 'angelic' idealized forms. You really wouldn't want to use these characters for generic background or badguys or anything.

But come on, you know this stuff... the kind of character assets that are going to sell the best will be stuff like polygonmaker's Barbarian set. There's a reason you used it in your game, and I use it in my game. It's because it's thematically agnostic, but it doesn't feel like it is. The quality is acceptable, and you get a huge range of stuff.

 

If you're talking about the base models, I agree, like I said above they looked like they stepped out of Baywatch for a bit of a fantasy jaunt.

However I'm pretty impressed with the costumes that were shown in this picture:



They all look good to me and especially the top right are what I would call high quality generic and would fit most medieval/fantasy rpg. I would in fact buy this character probably, if I were making such a game.

 

The top right is the least stylized. Basically, you need to get rid of all the little details and doohickies. If you make the characters more realistic and less fantastic you'll sell more because it's more applicable to a range of themes. It's also worth noting that the top right has a helmet, so it covers the face - making it even more generic.

I couldn't use any of these in my games for example, because my game is a low fantasy setting. Although the top right comes closest.

 

If by doohickies you mean the little useless shield, absolutely!

I kind of like the top left though, it's stylized but very cool. And the blue one would be great for an alien!

 

I'm not saying they aren't very nice art. They're just not actually useful in many cases. You really need to be doing a traditional high fantasy game, and need a main character model in order to use this. Maybe like a Dragon age origins, but these days - people are far more interested in Game of Thrones.

But again, this entire thread is just a shameless plug - cuz OP definitely understands all of this considering he has used the asset store extensively

I mean - again - self promotion is cool - but this thread really belongs in the asset store forum, not in general. If every asset store publisher started threads like this - it would dominate the general forum.

I don't think OP really needs marketing help, considering this entire thread is marketing.

 

Thread isn't all roses for OP, he's had some stiff criticisms so I think it's fine for an author to talk about improving sales so long as it's not obnoxious. It's also a risk people take, what if it was ALL bad!

Having said this, if it starts a trend of aggressive promotion I'll have to start locking threads like this. If it doesn't start a trend and it's only the occasional thread, seems fine. I already warned them over on screenshot saturday thread. I totally get it - authors want to promote. In this case nobody's stupid - the OP wants sales but he is IMHO asking for feedback.

I guess the long term solution is a sticky in asset store thread where authors ask what they can do about their asset selling badly, if they really want.

 

But isn't this thread kind of unfair to other asset store vendors? If everyone who normally posts in the asset store forum posted a thread here like "What can I do to make my asset better" - there would be no general forum.