Serious Flaws edit
This article has some serious flaws. The article is definitely not written from a neutral POV.
For example, take this phrase in the first paragraph: “While not technically illegal,”
The phrase carries in it an embedded assumption that the reader would reasonably think that asset flips are somehow illegal. The first paragraph also has some other bizarre phrases, like where it reads “legally purchases pre-made assets”. What is the word “legally” doing there?
Honestly, the whole article seems like it was written by someone with an axe to grind, and it just doesn’t read like an encyclopedia article at all (despite following the form of an encyclopedia article).
Completely wrong edit
The definition of asset flip in the article is completely wrong. Asset flip is when developer have a game on the market and decides to FLIP ASSETS (replace graphic assets and nothing else) and tries to sell it as a new game - that's an asset flip. In other words re-skin with graphic changes only.
How a game created even entirely with cheap pre-made assets is a FLIP? That doesn't make any sense. Coding is the expensive part, if you create new codebase it's not a flip, fgs. The only exception would be if the codebase is super easy to make, but game of this type is super popular (Flappy Bird case), then you can call a clone of Flappy Bird with new graphics an asset flip but again it's all about reskinning and making money easily not about using assets from marketplace.
I believe the term was coined long before 2015, long before asset marketplaces, probably in the 90s, and articles from 2015 are simply repeating some flawed terms after kids on the internet who try to look smart and try to use new terminology but have no idea what are they saying. 164.127.38.255 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)