I am going to clarify this in that its up to the individual user as to whether they will continue to create free assets.

I thought I'd clear a couple of things up for a sec:
There would still be free assets from creators who would rather "donate" assets.
As for the payment system, I was thinking converting it to "virtual pounds" which would work on the exchange rate at the time of purchase. So if you put in $10, you'd get £6.55 of credit to spend (Rather than displaying it as $10).

yeah dude I hate to say it...

PatMarrNC wrote:

who said anything about greed? That word hasn't come up once until now.

There would still be free assets from creators who would rather "donate" assets.

Amidst all the talk of greed and points and money and payments... there would still be free stuff, right?

PatMarrNC wrote:


If the sales items are priced in points, then currency exchange rate changes between you purchasing points and spending them have no effect.

I'm assuming that the monies will be deposited in a UK bank, then withdrawn for each purchase at the current exchange rate. This may be one reason why some people use a point system (it disguises purchasing variance due to changing exchange rates)

I agree with the points system - it releases a lot of strain from transaction fees. Also, as you guys have said, it's more appealing to have some credit to spend than having to reach for your credit card every time.
However, I think it needs to be represented in a real currency (as Steam does) rather than a confusing 100points is $1 or whatever; just say it's $1 or £0.50.

MMmmmm doughnuts.... nice

...however, in my experience, I'd rather take the hit for a high poly model because it looks good on screen (or at least better than the low poly option). It's down to the buyer to decide whether they want to blow their poly budget on just a couple of items, isn't it? As much as I'd like to have a car that only uses less than 1k and doesn't look like crap on screen, I've yet to find one.

So, what I'm saying is that you need to make the seller give this kind of detailed info because some of us are more poly conscious than others The limit for Muvizu is actually 20k in one object, so the ceiling is already fixed, it's just up to the (well informed) buyer if they want to have 10k HD doughnuts or not. Some really interesting points coming out of this thread...

artpen wrote:


Yeah I have not found these two things to be congruous in fact I think you will find that if you really looked into it .. its the opposite. Its actually more difficult to create good looking low poly game engine ready stuff then it is to create high poly stuff, but I think your thinking about "resolution" which is different.

In this case I think that muvizu can handle to a point what are called "mid rez" stuff that is low poly or possibly medium poly objects with medium resolution textures and normal maps. This is defined as 2048x2048 texture and normal map. However I can say that we are limited by polygons a great deal in muvizu due to the engines age and the polygon count actually falls into the low poly range.

I dont think a mid poly character would even work that well in muvizu and by that I mean 55k polygons is too much

However objects should all be below 1k polygons unless its something very larger .. a full house maybe and even then I would be looking at less then 5k polygons.

Most objects we make should probably fall around the 500 polygon range. Maybe a car 2k poly .. maybe I might push it to 5k and if i want to be wasteful 10k but that would be me being lazy that day LOL. I would also probably give it away for free because its polygon heavy which is "bad form" in a game engine so anyhow. I will shut up about polygons the subject makes me cranky

(i am very opinionated today it seems sorry ^^)
edited by urbanlamb on 19/11/2015

A lot of the content systems, like Reallusion, use points that reduce the number of micro transactions of cash. You buy points once and spend them in dribs and drabs without processing fees. I've never looked into the mechanics of it but now I see why they use it.

Okay gonna say something about this as well. Not all moguls are good at all things. So in the end I think it should be digimania that screens content for their store. I can also say that likely there are content providers out there who would refuse to take part in a store with peer control.

At the moment I appear to be picking things apart, but I want to ensure that if people are spending money they get their money's worth and what they purchase is appropriate for use in a real time engine and more specifically muvizu's engine.

For price I honestly think this should be up to the seller in part keeping in mind that there is likely a minimum price that would make sense due to the various costs involved with moving money around.

Mmm, fair point, what I mean is top quality, the amount of time that person has spent on the model, most of the time they are high poly, so yes, they will need to be Poly slashed for Muvizu.

I guess it also boils down to how large the market is. Judging by the number of forum posters and downloads of even the greatest free assets, I have to wonder if the finer details matter just yet.

By this stage of the game Muvizu should rely more on the "Moguls" as a screening panel for anyone wanting to sell content. They could determine quality and do a poll on a suggested price after getting access to the assets on an honour basis. (Won't ever use unless they buy it.) Or it could be something presented in a film for everyone in the forum to vote on. (Needing a set number of thumbs up.)

The current system of seeing just a few comments on the product page really don't encourage me to buy. The approval stamp of at least five out of ten experts here would.

artpen wrote:


Why do you feel a hi-polygon model is better quality then a low poly model? I dont understand this LOL.

Hi poly models are usualy base sculpts not meant for use. Places like daz sell them but the end user has to decimate them down because they are not suitable for use in real time engines. For instance their characters are not even suited for use in cpu based renders without heavy modification. They create them that way for morphing reasons, but at the end of the day its the low poly model that is the better model.

They certainly are not suitable for use inside muvizu and you would be hurting yourself by purchasing them.

PCollimonster wrote:


All depends on quality, detail or polygon count, and obviously how popular it is.

I'd say 1 pound - Basic model no textures.

2 pound - medium quality, simple paint textures.

2.99 - Max price for top quality, high poly, good textures.

Hi All

What would you expect a single object to be priced at?

How about Polygons = Price? A simple object, less than a 1k polygons, could be capped to a max of £1. More complexity would justify the higher price.

Hi All

Thank you for your comments and ideas.

There are some challenges we face here at Muvizu HQ regarding transaction fees from our payment gateways, and how we package the assets.

With all payment gateways there is a set transaction fee and then a percentage of the transaction. The transaction fee and percentage fluctuates depending on the type of payment and also the type of credit card used. There is also European VAT regulations which have to be adhered to for purchases from inside the EU.

With this in mind it makes more sense to sell higher value assets or a collection of assets to form a pack.

We have been discussing the idea of standardising the definition of what a pack contains and also the global pricing structure.

In regards to distribution as well as the .com site we will give the creator the option to have the assets sold on our overseas distributors sites, and if the content is suitable via our distribution networks into the educational technology market.

Exciting times.

This is not 100 miles away from some ideas we have been discussing!

Possibly you have considered and discounted this idea - but what about selling Muvizu animations and/or props in FBX format for use in external applications. I'm sure they would sell well.