It all depends on the quality of your asset, you may find many low poly models selling like hot cake, but you can also find triple AAA models not selling at all. So it require hard work and a bit of luck.
Name it properly. If I had named my Katagon asset Champion Challenge Kit I woulda made more sales…as a very experienced 30+ year veteran developer told me.,. But…I am the kind that does something and it was a climb up the mountain and that was simply a base camp I stayed for an extra day, checked off on my been there done that bucket list…not satisfying enough in this trek through this gambit of game dev… mileage may vary. Can you focus on a small area for more than a simple roundabout or do bigger things loom on the horizon where you would rather be.
2 Likes
How many package you have upload, and there average price, I am new here
At the time, we had 3, now 4 as of last week. Our average month is more like $1k gross these days, unless we get featured (we are currently Level 11 with Core GameKit).
1 Like
True, but the AAA assets are more expensive so they sell less, but make more. There are far too many $5 items that don’t match anything else. You have to sell a lot of those to make $80.
I guess one thing to consider is in terms of audience, often assets are quite ‘specific’ in terms of who they are going to appeal to. They tend to solve a particular problem or need, rather than be rather more nebulous in their appeal like games are. So if someone has a particular need and you have the product, that’s a good fit. But that’s going to also be pretty ‘long tail’ and unless your asset is quite flexible or adjustable, it may be too specific for a wide audience. I think this is partly why the higher priced items make more money because they most likely are either appealing to big enough audiences and give those audiences several benefits, or they are general-purpose enough that they have a lot of flexibility. Lower-end stuff seems to be a lot more specific, like… a bunch of rocks. I mean, you have to be in the market for a bunch of rocks to buy that.
So there I think is something to be said for trying to cast a wide enough net, either by making a much bigger higher level more expensive asset of some kind, tool or whatever, that can appeal to many different needs, OR you create many many smaller cheaper more specific assets (that are thus longer tail) and will collectively over time add up to a decent income.
I have maybe 5 or so assets on the store, they are all somewhat old now, and most are to do with shaders. Typically combined I was making maybe $250-$300 per month at most, unless I got into a sale. But without a whole lot of extra effort, those assets continue to gradually sell to people that are looking for what they offer, but gradually now at a decreasing rate of down to about $150 per month total. I believe that has a lot to do with the facts that a) there are far more people shopping and they might be more particular, b) there is far more competition, c) the level of quality of the competition has risen quite significantly since the earlier days of the store with much smarter programmers and more serious developers coming on board now that they see the store is a ‘serious thing’, d) there is less scarcity, e) times have moved on and people are looking for more cutting-edge stuff or trends etc.
There is something to be said for creating that kind of mostly passive income though… not having to do a whole lot to maintain something over time. My best-selling asset maybe sells only 5 or so copies a month at most. But, thats 5x12=60 copies a year at least, at $20 or so, 70% is $840/yr profit. Been selling for maybe 2-3 years, so it’s maybe made 2-3000 or more over time. Doesn’t sound too bad for something that took a couple of weeks part-time to put together, but it’s not like you can live off that by any means. But I think if you could create many appealing, relevant, useful assets, collectively it could add up to something interesting.
I think also with bigger assets they automatically come with a) more complexity, b) a more involved audience, c) more customer questions and problems d) more potential for bugs and compatibility issues etc, e) more troubles when Unity upgrades and something breaks etc. Smaller stuff is at least a bit less prone to do something too trouble or to have too high of a customer expectation. Maybe that’s not good business advice, I don’t know, but it was my approach to try to give good documentation and easy usability up-front so that it didn’t generate too much need to deal with customers afterwards. Sort of like, do it right the first time, then you’ll avoid hassles later.
I have heard that editor extensions are some of the highest paid in total sales, along with scripting. And more and more people are making a living off the store. But I think probably mostly those are people who have products in at least the $25+ range maybe more likely the $50 range. And who would make anything to sell for $2? Why bother. You have to also experiment with your price because sometimes lowering it may get you, overall, more money, or it may actually hurt, versus raising the price and getting less unique buyers but more overall dollars. Depends on your preferences.
Also if you’re making a bigger asset and you’re putting a lot of time into it and making a living off it and giving lots of customer service and additional support materials and constant updates and all those happy things that people like, then you’ve got to be kind of serious about doing that as a ‘business’ long term and be committed to that as a lifestyle and something you want to keep doing. It’s hard to just publish and forget when its something that customers give more commitment to, they sort of expect more commitment in return. Do you want that?
One other point I guess is that you are developing a ‘product’, and product development for any ‘business’ has various parts to it including doing research on the audience, figuring out the competition, coming up with some unique selling point or feature or whatever, what problem does it solve, how does it solve it, how do you make it look appealing and accessible, etc, how do you market it or present it, the naming of it, the quality of the screenshots and so on, the amount of customer support - custom website, forums, etc. You have to consider all that stuff and not just bang something out, if you are a bit more serious about it. Some of the assets I’ve enjoyed most releasing though are those that were simpler and less complex and less advanced and less expensive, just because you can kind of make them and be done with it and put it out there without too much effort behind trying to put a big bow on it. It is what it is. Versus tarting something up with pretty pictures and polish and all that. But you know, part of marketing is giving the impression that something is more than it really is.
1 Like
This is VERY important. Lately, it seems that some developers who have sold some expensive assets are abandoning them. There are a lot of reasons, from health issues, to new job, to new family members. These are very valid reasons but as it happens more and more, it becomes more risky to purchase assets on the asset store.
I used to buy stuff that looked good and did what I wanted it to do. Now, I ask around, make sure the person has other assets on the store, and get to know the developer before I buy. I am much more likely to invest money in developers who have been around a while and look like the will stay, like Devdog and Adam Goodrich.
Disappearing developers can really affect your game. When they disappear, you could lose a lot of work if the asset isn’t updated for new versions of Unity. I think with the big changes coming this may happen more.
Lots of times, I think this happens because the developers can’t keep up with the support. Some assets are very complex and the users have very little knowledge of Unity. Rather than support their own product, they find themselves teaching others how to use the engine instead. I have always thought it would be nice to have a difficulty setting for assets. That way, beginners will know what is or what is not appropriate for them. When someone purchases an asset that is too complex for them, it can make them angry and it shows in the forum posts and reviews. I can certainly understand why some developers simply cannot provide this level of hand holding.
I have purchased a few things do to slick advertising…and regretted my purchase. So I highly suggest people ask around and read the reviews. When you write reviews, especially if you are known in the community, use your real name. It can really boost sales and it can also keep those slick advertising developers honest. 
1 Like
This is a good point but I think it might be simply that the developers don’t make enough money from the products to be able to justify supporting and updating them for the distant future. In the beginning people are probably happy with whatever they get but after a while it might become a burden on their lives.
There can also be a huge amount of factors affecting sales - Unity might implement something similar, the genre it’s aimed for might go out of fashion, stiff competition might crop up - so your sales drop and never get back up and at some point you just think “it’s not worth it”.
In my opinion, supporting a relatively complex product for 2 or 3 years is sufficient as a minimum, as long as it’s immediately taken down or marked as unsupported. Ideally though, you’d sell it to someone else who can continue it along.
I am not talking about assets that have been around for more than 3 years. I don’t think I have been around for much longer than that. lol
I think that stopping support leads to losing sales. One asset I am thinking of is still very popular, the forum is busy, and many of the users have been offering support, including one on one support. But the developer is missing for the most part. I imagine he will return so not too concerned, but he is losing sales and he is getting reviews that reflect the lack of support, which is sad.
Another is a larger company that also sells on Unreal’s site. They have abandoned the Unity version after charging a rather large price and after a very slick advertising period before release. They are doing nothing to address the concerns on their forums. This was has been out for far less than a year so there is no excuse. It seems to me as if they never intended to provide support, which is a huge issue. They even say on the forums that they don’t have a lot of time to support the asset.
Very sad…and it makes people less likely to spend money on more expensive assets.
Odd thing, I get better support for some free assets, like UMA. So the not making money thing is probably mute. I see plenty of free assets, such as the LUX shaders giving support to users.
I don’t think money has anything to do with it and if it does, then these are some cynical developers. If they don’t sell many, their support demand is less so they should be able to support the asset.
Yeah I think there’s a line to walk between being a professional business and ‘just another dev’ - sure we all probably update our products in our pijamas but some sellers do things that are borderline illegal, probably not even for malicious reasons but because they just don’t see themselves as any kind of professional entity. I’m glad the asset store seems to be tightening up and hope it continues to squeeze out these kinds of sellers - less noise for those wanting to build up a solid business.
1 Like
I hope so. But they need to hold those “professional companies” to the higher standards than they do now. I lost over $100 on an asset that is so bad that I can’t believe I bought it.
I think they are, at least more than before. I recently had my first code asset rejected for a few reasons including that I didn’t have a proper website, and that they wanted some evidence that I had a long-term presence on the forums and would support it (don’t know why they couldn’t see just see my profile 
). I’ve seen a number of low-quality assets that have been around for a while taken down in the last year or so.
Now if only the Play Store would do the same …
1 Like
It’s going to vary depending on the type of asset and the demand. I have a professional company, but I’m not doing it to make a living so there’s no danger of me deciding to bail because an asset isn’t making enough money. As with anything, if you want to make something with the asset store you get out of it what you put in. I have one code asset. These days I typically Net $1,100 to $1,200 / month after Unity takes their 30% off the top.
I’ve had the asset up for a few years and sales are only about 60% or less of what they were in their prime. I’m already working on some new assets / ideas to publish. That’s one of the key things, is making sure you’re ready to adapt and grow even if it’s not a full time gig. Spend time… lots of time on the forums, and not just to promote your product. Spend time helping others, being engaged in the community and build a good name for yourself, then link to your asset in your signature.
2 Likes
I currently consistently make $100 - $350/mo from Deftly and get about 6 emails/wk for feature requests so technically that pays for less than a full day of work every month for maintenance. So for me, that means I spend my free time doing something I most likely won’t see any further profit connected with time spent outside of mandatory maintenance. This is probably one of the reasons publishers abandon products, they get a lot of support requests and sales dwindle so the incentive is pretty low. This is less of an issue if you publish a more full-fledged product with less room for complaint.
Another big factor is the audience you’re targeting. Top-Down Framework’s like Deftly are really niche, so its probably going to make less than say an editor extension that can literally be used in any project. If you’re looking for the biggest audience, its right there. Editor extensions. Stuff that just about anybody can use in any project regardless of the genre, or stuff that is used in almost every genre eg Dialog systems, Inventory systems, Quest systems, Database/spreadsheet hooks, Networking, etc.
I’m working on other stuff I plan on putting on the store, but its also pretty niche so I guess I’m too dumb to take my own advice or I just like doing this stuff. Probably both.
1 Like
Very similar to what I run into. I get a ton of emails. Many of them are pre-sales “how would you do ‘x’ with your asset?” type of emails that often times take some work to answer. Then there are support requests which I get a fair number of and in roughly 90% of all cases it’s because Unity is stripping something during the stripping process. I spend quite a few hours handling support / sales and make it a mission to respond as quickly as possible (last week my phone woke me and I answered a support question at 3:30 am).
So, there is “Sales”, but there’s also the aspect of the value you get from those sales. For me, I spend a lot of time so while my asset brings in good income, it’s not a significant amount per hour of time. But I also enjoy the hell out of it. I love seeing who is using it, what they’re using it for etc. I take great pride in it and the personal satisfaction alone provides a great deal of “value” that is far and above better than any sales amount.
2 Likes
Is it necessary to keep adding features to an asset? I always wondered why developers do this and don’t ask for an upgrade or make it a separate asset.
Yes, I know…you will get those people who scream, UNFAIR!
But if you are not getting paid for adding new features to an asset, then that seems unfair to me. If an asset is good and significant features are added, then it should be an upgrade or a new asset. I would pay for it if the support is good and I really like the asset/features. Maintenance I get and upgrading for Unity versions.
Again, you will get crucified by a few on the forums, but quality stuff is worth money. If one abandons a project because they keep adding features, to me that is the developer’s issue. As a developer who once was very involved in a huge online game community, I can tell you, there will always be those who want more and more and are not willing to pay for it. One must draw the line.
It makes me sad when people like Lane and others who give so much to this community feel that others do not see the worth of what they do. Many of us do. If I support a developer, I sometimes buy stuff I don’t even know I will use, and yeah, that might seem stupid, but I want them to keep developing.
If this is a wide spread thing, I fear we will lose the good developers and end up with an asset store full of $1 stuff that is worth $1.
1 Like
I find that adding features serves as advertising, and letting people know that the asset is not abandoned.
–Eric
2 Likes
Good point!! But what good does it do if the developer choose not to add features because the time is not being returned in sales? Then they abandon it because they can’t sell it anymore.
1 Like
I think it kind of boils down to timing for that perspective. For instance Deftly is over a year old now and the people who have owned it that long are really satisfied with it because they asked for stuff, it made sense and i added new features. But new users only see all those new things as a base product so they have a different perspective about all those bells and whistles that are just regular stock items to them.
After you fill up a product with “this is what it does” then any more features either start to do something other assets in the store do extremely well (so you make inferior branch features) or start to fit only into a few niche places that a small number of people will use (low incentive to add). At that point you have to kinda accept that it’s a good product, draw the line and keep making sure it works on the latest version of stuff. Updates convey that the asset has a pulse, but you don’t have to continue adding features if you don’t want to - especially if it starts turning into bloatware features - thats horrible.
I’m pretty sure that not all users see this all negatively and are generally happy with their purchase as long as the product does what it says. I mean, I’ve only had one refund request in over a year and there are a lot of assets that just get maintained as required that are still super popular so that shows that it isn’t necessary to bloat products constantly with new features and updates.
1 Like
I have actually stopped using some assets because of this “bloatware”. So I see the negative in continuing to add more and more. A few assets I own have so many parts that they get lost in my project files. Others just try to do EVERYTHING and that drives me crazy. I might already have something coded (by my programmers, not by me) to do that and now I have redundancy. Sometimes the bloatware affects performance of the asset.
I guess it is a balance, going far enough to keep people happy and stopping before it becomes to unwieldy. I don’t make shooters, so don’t use your asset but you seem like one of the good developers.
1 Like