There's a lot of confusion in these replies. I don't even know what one of them is accusing me of- having posted early access mods before does not mean I thus have to be okay with all forms of monetization or with EA monetizing CC this way.
Again, if this set were made by a *different* creator, it'd be a *different* situation. The issue is multifaceted- one facet is "This set is a specific theme which this creator has already released for free". The idea there is that if we're getting paid CC in the form of kits, the least they can do is not have creators redo sets they have already made. It muddles up the value of both the free and paid sets to do that.
I would not care if this were a SixamCC mudroom set. Because SixamCC does not already have a mudroom set I can go get for free. If SixamCC is approached to get a creator kit and opts for a mudroom, good for him. If Peacemaker is approached to get a creator kit adn opts to make content he has already made, it...is simply a different scenario. I can't really boil it down further than that, I don't know how to make that make more sense.
It feels bad to pay for a secondary version of a thing that exists for free, plain and simple. Changing the creator *does* change that context, because the entire point of these kits is the creator behind them. You like Sixam CC? Here's a whole new set of SixamCC stuff! Wow! And it's got a budget of some kind put behind it and it doesnt count as CC so you can share builds with it, neat!
Swap the creator out for one who already offers the set in question for free...and yeah, it's a different value prospect. It feels dramatically more like "just plain paid CC" in that context.
I don't want to get free fries and then be offered to pay for a second side of slightly differently seasoned fries, I'd prefer to be offered a side that I do not already have on my plate. Is that unreasonable?
