The new 3D Bazaar opens up great new opportunities - for having all assets in one place and an easy way to buy new ones, like those beautiful “Creepers” from Globe Plants.
I have, however, already aquired a license for those particular assets from Globe Plants. Therefore I wanted to voice this idea:
It would be awesome, if Skatter knew, which asset licenses I already aquired. Ideally, this would happen automatically (Skatter getting the information from Globe Plants) or manually, (Globe Plants providing me with a code that I can paste into an input field in Skatter).
Have you already thought about such things?
If not, do you think there’s a way to achieve this?
Maybe you can create the new defacto standard for license management for 3D assets!
Would be pretty awesome!
I have been wondering about this. You are probably not the only one that will be in this situation, but I don’t see a simple solution.
The 3D Bazaar is now a separate extension from Skatter, there will be many users that will use it without owning a Skatter license. So the business model for the 3D Bazaar cannot be limited to being a content library for Skatter. To maintain the platform, we need revenue outside of Skatter. So the business model for the 3D Bazaar is to take a fee on each purchase from the marketplace. This covers the costs of storage, bandwidth, development and maintenance of the platform itself, marketing, support, etc. We even convert the vendor’s assets to SketchUp, in some cases.
In this context, we can’t simply allow users to make a purchase elsewhere, and give them access to the assets stored and managed on our platform without any financial compensation for us.
Although unlikely, it could even open possibilities for abuse from the vendors. They could set higher prices on the 3D Bazaar compared to their own stores, to incentivize customers to buy from them directly (hence bypassing our fee) while still offering the full benefits of using the 3D Bazaar (we would be the ones paying for bandwidth etc).
For sure we will need to find some kind of compromise, because from the user’s point of view it is not acceptable to have to purchase assets twice.