Suggestion: Reverse market


Something that I think would add a lot of value to the community and the creative process would be the ability to place bounties on specific assets, scripts, scenarios, or features.

Sometimes the creator says “I want to make this, we’ll see if people want to buy it”. This would enable the creator to say “I see people want this, and I am guaranteed at minimum this payout”. It allows a market-driven communication of demand. Allow the bounty to be declared in any amount in the smallest meaningful increments. How the asset would be “awarded” on completion would be up for discussion, you wouldn’t want to devalue it by allowing it to be claimed by everyone that donated a nickel, maybe something like “everyone who pledged at least the average pledge or better, and those that pledged at least 75% of the finalized list price.”

Further, you might allow bounties to be declared for more generalized purposes. For instance: instead of declaring for a specific texture or mesh, you declare to a category, or even to a genre or subgenre (more specific genres than exist now in the store). Let’s say you’re not sure what you want, but you want more “western” stuff, cowboys and indians. Instead of setting up a bounty on a Native American headdress or spaghetti western music, you add to a global bounty on “western genre”. Now creators can contribute in an area where there is demand, but choose what way best suits their abilities. Since it is coming from a global pool shared among many creators, the method would need to be worked out: perhaps a certain percentage of the existing pool as of given date, up to a cap determined by a schedule of prices HiFi would need to determine depending on the complexity of the creation.

In all of these bounty methods there would need to be some sort of quality assurance to make sure there aren’t people abusing the system, turning out effortless junk just to nab the rewards. That’s on HiFi to a certain point, but a rating system on bounty outcomes might be used to at least cut through some of the static, you could write a report to show you the bounty outcomes that have the lowest overall ratings, so that you could review them for abuse.

I’m pretty excited for this project overall because it very closely mirrors a brainstorming project I had a couple years ago. I’m also a developer by trade. Here’s a link to the google drive folder with my scribblings. Let me know if you want to talk about it.

Much of this is in the “how we get content” doc


We do already utilize this type of system to some degree here at: We haven’t opened it up to community cross-collaboration just yet, but we certainly see the merit in what you’re suggesting and are also thinking about how this type of exchange might work best.

Thanks for adding to the good suggestions. Keep them coming!