INFOGRAPHIC: Low Poly 3D Models, VR And You: How To Ride The Wave In 2016

Again great info, thanks ;-)

However, I think there might be slight misrepresentation of some type of models, because no category exist for it (meaning these models are scattered in non fitting categories having no representation of how well/not well they perform).

For example a root category for sci-fi/fantasy, does not exist.
There are however 3 sci-fi sub categories in specific root categories, but sci-fi things that do not fit these specific root categories have a problem.

It happens to be some of my models are of this types and have no category's to place them in, however they sell relatively well.

Some people maybe get impression that fictional things sell less than real word things, wish may not be the case? In my case I can tell my fictional stuff sells better then my real world things (except for the biological items).

The data provided can't seem to sort this out right now (maybe a bit to granular in this regard)?
My question remains, how well does fictional stuff perform relative to real world items?
Maybe fictional stuff is underserved?

I see in top performers animals, space, plant/tree, character/human.
It would be nice to have some more feedback of what types of models perform well in there, are some of good performers maybe fantasy/fictional?

Ps. Some of my models are (for lack of fitting category) in architectural details.
That is now showing as a poor performing category, but to my perception my items seem to do well.

What is doing well actually mean?
I frankly have no idea (only have relative figures of my own channel to have a bearing on this).

If a model in price range of 40 to 60 dollars sells 3 to 4 times a month, I consider that a good selling model, if it sells 1 time every 3 months that is poor performer in my perception (again I base this on my own statistics).

Actually what does CGtrader consider a good selling model?
Are there maybe models that sell multiple time per week or even day?

I am aware my story is somewhat an isolated one but do bring it to attention because you see that in some cases things can have skewed view.

So to those hoe are planning to make sci-fi or strange artistic stuff/parts, modular sets or kitbash sets that can be used in designing other things, do know they sells relatively well but info graphic does not show this.

To my perception this looks like an underserved category not being mentioned.

Sorry for the supper long reply, hope you can find the time to read it out ;-)

To begin, thanks ginvile for the long reply yourself, it was very helpful.
It indeed clarifies the intent of the infographic and it is very useful,
but my comment is also somewhat referring to something ells.

I'm not all that worried about missing categories, people do indeed seem to find the odd things anyways and we can also use external community specific platforms to divert key people to our specific things up here, so no real problem just some details.

My remark was indeed that it is harder to make out what types of models are performing relative to others, the data seems all to imply real world items, fantasy and sci-fi types do not have distinct representation in it.

You answered my questions in detail, but my initial concerns regarding this missing representation and effect it has on perception (could be personal bias here?) still somewhat remain.

The concerns mainly have to do with appeal to and representation of a somewhat smaller but growing part of the CG community (the people carving out niches in latent subcultures).

I know it somewhat has to do with personal taste and everything but I believe there is great potential amongst these subcultures of experimenters and innovators (hoe in my opinion will also have an important role to play in upcoming VR age).

However, I do get impression that this is maybe underestimated or left a bit out of sight.

Missing a root category for everything artistically prone (and representation of it in the statistics) somewhat enforces this perception.

On the other hand people seem to get more encouraged to make real world items that are already plentifully served.

But this is not what I really want to point out.

I'm not really sure how to communicate the thing I want to point out, but maybe this recent user case can be used as an example to point at the subject?

So I had the chance to have a chat with this recent user about how he found my items and how he is using them.

The user called himself a sort of 3D collage artist and he was looking for some alien plants here on CGtrader, he found mine and he then was interested to see some more of my work and got inspired by some of the things and purchased some more models because of it.

This was a clear example of a need created on the fly just by shear triggering of imagination.
He also told me he was a producer of music video's (also experimenting with VR experiences) and that he was always on lookout for inspiration and things he can use for his creations.

You know, these types of people sometimes don't even know what they're looking for and have no matching keyword for it to enter, they just want to be inspired by something and maybe find stuff to build further upon or use it as an element to make something ells.

So wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of basket (a root category)where all the strange things (sci-fi, fantasy, experimental, abstract, etc., things not of this world) would reside in, so that these artistically prone things can be easily accessed by these types of inspiration hunters and the needs they create on the fly?

Is it really that hard to add a root Sci-fi/fantasy category and maybe some subcategories character, environment, vehicle and abstract or other?

The point is that some things are just hard to tag and these inspiration hunting people sometimes just don't know what tag to use for finding these something's, but what they do know is that they need something out of this world and it most probably resides in a Sci-fi/ fantasy category.

Unfortunately this does not exist at this moment.