Hey guys what do you think about this, now that steam pays modders 25% instead of paying for starter kits, you get it for free but you simply pay some % of profits.
I don’t understand this much. I’m assuming you’re referring to Unity asset store pricing change?
Yeah essentially a new category in the asset store called mods with a new license or whatever. So instead of paying for them you get them for free but you have to pay some percentage of the profits.
I wouldn’t do it, unless I had no other options.
Oh well it was just an idea. I mean there are a lot of kits on the store that don’t sell anymore but if you said these are free, and maybe someone could make some profit off it then it would be worthwhile to keep updating it. The infinite monkey theory
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
1 Like
Not sure what infinite monkeys have to do with the topic, but given that Unity makes a point about the engine not having royalties as a marketing differentiator, I can’t imagine they’d want to introduce that into the store either. Makes accounting far too annoying.
–Eric
Not only this, there’s no way in hell I’d buy assets based on % royalty - ever, ever.
1 Like
Okay whatever. Anyway The monkeys would be the developers who would have it for free (so you would have a lot of devs monkeys) and the typewriters would be the games, eventually over a long enough period of time one of them would write Shakespeare (ie a game that’s goes gold and you finally profit from it)
1 Like
But what if I don’t want to wait infinity years to make a profit? 
–Eric
I like the analogy myself and think there is a place for what you’re describing, just not for me. I think if you’re planning to do well the royalty approach is less appealing, but if you are just developing or plan on a unsuccessful release (I’d imagine in the large pool of people producing games there are some) then yeah it would seem to make sense, for “free” stuff anyway. From my perspective having royalties attached makes it not free though. And when looking at the overall cost a royalty situation could cost considerably more than a couple hundred dollars (the price range of some of the nicer assets) for a successful game.
When I think of procuring assets I look at the cost vs time savings. When you put an indeterminate factor on the cost it makes it a lot harder to determine if an asset is worth it or not. For me its a hard enough equation so that I avoid royalty assets altogether, thus no Unreal dev, etc. for me.