Fab.com Buyer UX After Unreal Marketplace Migration

Part 1: User Feedback (Post-Migration Issues)

Following the migration of Unreal Engine Marketplace content to Fab.com, many buyers have expressed frustration. Across Reddit, Twitter (X), Discord, and other forums, users have highlighted several ways in which Fab’s current experience is worse than the old Unreal Marketplace. Key recurring complaints include:

Numerous users have reported difficulty purchasing assets on Fab. The checkout process can be buggy and slow – for example, one user spent “3 hours to purchase some assets” only to find that clicking “Place Order” did nothing (Source). Such unresponsive behavior made it frustrating or impossible to buy content, whereas the old Marketplace’s purchase flow “worked just fine” in comparison.
‍
Fab launched without a Wishlist (favorites) feature, meaning users suddenly lost the item wishlists they had built on Unreal Marketplace. Many buyers were upset that “has no Wishlist” – a major regression that removed their ability to bookmark items for later (Source). One Redditor noted they went from 200 favorited items to 0 after the migration. Additionally, Fab hides local pricing until checkout, showing all prices in USD by default. This confused international users, as regional prices (with tax, currency conversion, etc.) only appear at the final step. In short, basic e-commerce features like wishlists and upfront regional pricing were initially absent.
‍
Almost universally, buyers feel that search on Fab is worse than on the old platform. It’s harder to find what you need – some even said they “can hardly find a project even when [they] know its name”. Relevance sorting seems unreliable; one commenter noted Fab’s search doesn’t show “relevant 3D models” in results (Source). In the early weeks of Fab, the search bar was outright broken at times (queries returned nothing or errored out). Even after fixes, users report the search results are inconsistent and cluttered, often mixing irrelevant content. Overall, finding specific assets became more difficult on Fab compared to the more refined search on Unreal Marketplace.
‍
Beyond weak search, filtering capabilities on Fab have been lacking. The old Marketplace allowed filtering by category, asset type, price, engine version, etc., but Fab’s initial implementation omitted many of these. For example, buyers cannot filter out assets they already own from listings (Source)- so while browsing, you’ll see items you’ve purchased in the past with no way to hide them. There’s also no way to filter or search by specific technical parameters (polygon count, whether a 3D model is rigged/animated, etc.), even though Sketchfab’s interface allowed this before (Source). This is problematic because the unified Fab store contains high-poly scans, low-poly game assets, rigged characters, static meshes, etc., all mixed together. Lack of sorting and advanced filters (by poly count, animation, file format, compatibility, price range, etc.) was a common pain point, forcing users to manually sift through many irrelevant results.
‍
The navigation design of Fab.com has also drawn criticism. Browsing assets feels cumbersome and unintuitive. One major annoyance is that the site does not preserve your scroll position when browsing a long list. For instance, if you scroll through dozens of assets, click one to view details, then hit the back button, Fab resets you to the top of the list – you lose your place and have to scroll all over again (Source). Users described this as extremely tedious when exploring large catalogs. Additionally, the category organization on Fab is unclear. The old Marketplace had well-defined categories (e.g. Environments, Characters, Blueprints, Audio etc.), but Fab initially presented a more generic or flat structure (one user noted everything was lumped under “Objects & Props”). This means important content gets buried under an overwhelming mixed listing. For example, many complained that to browse Quixel Megascans on Fab, you must wade through all of Quixel’s assets on one page without any subcategories or filters – an impossible task to find specific items. Overall, the site’s UX felt undercooked and confusing to many migrating users.
‍
With the migration, Epic changed how buyers obtain assets, and the new workflow was seen as a step backward. Previously, in the Unreal Launcher or editor, a user could download assets directly into their project (the old Marketplace had an “Add to Project” button). In contrast, Fab’s early approach required users to leave the engine and use a web browser to get assets. One user lamented that they now have to “open a browser window, download the asset, and import it into my project manually”, calling it “a nightmare” (Source). This lack of integration meant extra hassle for buyers. The Epic Games Launcher’s Vault (which stored purchased assets) also broke or became less useful – filters in the Vault were replaced with Fab’s categories, which didn’t align with engine versions or asset types (Source). Many developers avoided Fab entirely at first because this workflow friction made asset usage much more inconvenient than before.
‍
The unified Fab marketplace aggregates content from Unreal Marketplace, Sketchfab, Quixel, etc., which led to a flood of assets – not all of them good. Buyers quickly noticed an influx of low-quality or spam content that wasn’t as prevalent before. In community discussions, people pointed out “pages and pages of AI-made trash 3D models” and “absolute gutter quality AI textures” on Fab (Source). There were even reports of stolen assets (e.g. rips from Kitbash3D, Mixamo, or content taken from tutorial projects) being sold on Fab in its early days. This lack of curation was alarming to users used to the more controlled Unreal Engine Marketplace. The overall impression was that Fab launched without adequate moderation, making it harder to trust that assets are high-quality or legally safe. Legitimate creators’ products can get drowned out by the noise of auto-generated or copied assets, hurting discoverability and buyer confidence.
‍
Another regression compared to the original Marketplace is the removal of user reviews and Q&A sections on product pages. The old system allowed at least star ratings and in many cases written reviews or a Q&A thread where buyers could ask the seller questions. Epic decided that Fab “will not support open-text reviews or questions” on listings (only star ratings were carried over) (Source). This did not sit well with the community. Users rely on reviews for honest feedback and on Q&A for clarifications before purchase. One user complained, asking “what’s up with Epic not wanting written reviews? It’s nice to see something more than just a generic star system”. The absence of review comments means buyers have less information to judge an asset’s quality (beyond the star rating and the seller’s description). It also eliminates the opportunity for peer feedback and for sellers to respond publicly to issues. This change was seen as anti-consumer, and it fueled the sentiment that Epic launched Fab in a rush without crucial community features, making the buying experience less transparent than before.

In summary, user feedback on Fab.com’s rollout has been largely negative. Buyers feel that the new marketplace was “undercooked” – missing important features, with worse search and navigation, and riddled with quality issues – making it a downgrade from the Unreal Engine Marketplace in many respects. The frustration is palpable, with threads full of long-time Unreal users detailing how “everything got worse” and pleading for Epic to address these pain points.

Part 2: UX Critique and Suggestions for Improvement

Based on the above feedback and a hands-on review of the current Fab.com site, it’s clear there are significant UX issues to fix. Below is my UX audit of Fab’s buyer experience, with each issue paired with specific redesign suggestions. (Where relevant, we reference how competing marketplaces like Unity’s Asset Store or Epic’s own ArtStation handle similar features, to justify the improvements.)

2.1 Streamline the Purchase Process

The checkout flow needs to be faster and more reliable. Right now, users sometimes encounter slow loading or unresponsive buttons during purchase. Epic should optimize the site’s performance and ensure the “Place Order” button always provides immediate feedback (e.g. a loading spinner or progress indicator) when clicked. If an order fails, a clear error message should explain why and how to retry. Additionally, Fab should display regional prices upfront on product pages, not just at checkout. For example, if my account is in Europe, I should be able to see the price in € (VAT included) on the asset page. This transparency will prevent confusion for international buyers and was a common request. In short, polish the e-commerce basics: make transactions quick, predictable, and informative.

2.2 Restore the Wishlist (Favorites) Feature

A Wishlist is fundamental for any online marketplace – users expect to save items for later. Epic has started to address this: as of early 2025 they introduced a Wishlist feature on Fab (the “long-awaited wishlist” finally arrived in a recent update). The site should make this feature highly visible and easy to use. For instance, add an “Add to Wishlist” button on every product thumbnail and detail page. Ensure that when clicked, it gives feedback (e.g. item gets a wishlisted state). If possible, Epic should migrate users’ old wishlist data from the Unreal Marketplace into Fab, or at least communicate clearly if that’s not possible.

Some users had hundreds of favorites saved - losing that list was painful, so helping them rebuild it (perhaps via a one-time import or a reminder of what they had) would earn good will. Beyond wishlists, consider other account-level features popular on competing sites: for example, the Unity Asset Store lets you follow publishers; Fab could allow users to follow favorite creators/sellers or get notifications when an item on their wishlist goes on sale. These features drive engagement and purchases.

2.3 Improve Search Relevance and Precision

Fab’s search functionality requires a major overhaul to meet user expectations. Epic should invest in a better search algorithm and filters so that results are relevant. Currently, users have noted that search often fails to return obvious matches (even exact name matches) and shows lots of unrelated content. To fix this, search should prioritize results by relevance and allow more precise queries. Suggestions: Implement results categorization, with "Direct Matches" that are title matches, and "Related Results" where we display items that match due to their descriptions.

A buyer should be able to, say, search only Unreal Engine assets (excluding Sketchfab models or other categories) if they want. Unity’s Asset Store, for instance, lets you refine searches by asset category (3D models vs. audio vs. scripts, etc.), which helps narrow results. Fab could provide filters for search results like “Engine-ready assets only” or “Sketchfab models only” to reduce noise. Autocomplete and suggestion features could also help users find what they mean (e.g. typing “forest” suggests “Forest Environment Pack”). Overall, making search smarter and more filtered will drastically improve the user experience, as buyers will quickly find the exact asset they have in mind. We can merge filters scattered across the screen into a single location, the left Discover panel.

2.4 Add Advanced Filtering Options

In addition to improving search, Fab should introduce robust filtering on browse pages. At minimum, implement the filters that users expect from the old Marketplace and Sketchfab. For example, allow a “Hide Owned Items” filter or indicator, so buyers don’t keep seeing assets they’ve already purchased. This helps repeat customers manage their browsing. Also add technical attribute filters – for 3D models, users should be able to filter by polygon count range, by whether an asset is rigged or animated, by texture resolution, etc.

2.5 Enhance Navigation and Catalog Organization

The overall navigation scheme of Fab.com should be rethought to make browsing easier. Right now, content organization is too flat – users complained that everything is thrown together without clear categories, causing good assets to get lost in the crowd. Fab should re-introduce clear category hierarchies and menus, much like the old Unreal Marketplace and other competitor sites.

Finally, fix the Back-button behavior and state retention on browse pages. When a buyer scrolls through a long list and views an asset, then goes back, the site should remember their previous scroll position and loaded results. This can be achieved by dynamic loading or client-side state management. Not losing your place in a list is a small convenience that greatly improves browsing flow. In short, better structure and stateful navigation will help users discover content without frustration.

2.6 Strengthen Content Curation & Quality Control

Epic needs to address the content quality issues on Fab to rebuild user trust. The idea is to label AI-generated content. If AI-produced models/textures are allowed, they could be tagged as such, and users could filter them out if desired. Users specifically complained about the influx of AI content, so giving control over viewing those is important.

Similarly, content from official sources like Quixel or vetted partners could have a badge, so buyers know it’s trustworthy. Epic’s own ArtStation marketplace, for example, highlights featured creators and art packs – Fab could similarly spotlight trusted creators or “Verified” assets. By cleaning up the marketplace and showcasing quality, the overall user experience will improve (less “noise” to wade through). In summary, better curation and moderation will ensure Fab’s huge library remains an asset (wide selection) rather than a liability (overwhelming junk).

2.7 Add Community Feedback Mechanisms

To enrich the buying experience, Fab should introduce a way for the community to provide feedback on assets, beyond just star ratings. User reviews and Q&A sections were heavily missed after the migration. Suggestion: Implement a written review system where buyers can leave a comment along with a star rating for purchased items.

Unity’s Asset Store, for example, allows text reviews, and this gives prospective buyers invaluable insight (what others liked or disliked about an asset, how well it works in practice, etc.). Epic was cautious about reviews (perhaps to avoid negativity or support overhead), but a moderated system can be put in place. For instance, they could require that only verified purchasers can review, and use filters to catch offensive language or off-topic remarks. They could also allow sellers to respond to reviews, or have a Q&A tab where people can ask questions and asset creators answer (this was a feature on the old Unreal Marketplace forums).

One Reddit user noted that reviews were “very helpful context when buying things like plugins because they would tell you about gotchas or pitfalls and provide a place for maintainers to respond to questions.” This kind of community interaction builds confidence for buyers. Even if Epic doesn’t want to replicate a full review system, they might consider at least a rating breakdown (breakout of stars) and a FAQ or Q&A section per asset. Currently, only a single aggregate star rating is shown, which is less informative. By adding community feedback features, Fab would become more of a social marketplace where users help each other make decisions – something that is standard on other platforms. Ultimately, enabling reviews and questions can drive up quality (peer feedback pressures sellers to improve) and helps buyers feel informed, addressing the “only a generic star system” complaint.

Summary

In conclusion, Fab.com’s buyer experience needs significant UX improvements to meet the standards set by the previous Unreal Marketplace and competing asset stores. The good news is that Epic has already started responding to feedback – for instance, by adding the wishlist feature and rolling out search and UX updates in recent months.

However, as the above analysis shows, there are still many areas to refine: from basic navigation fixes and feature parity (wishlist, filters, reviews) to deeper integration and curation efforts. By implementing these suggestions – better navigation, stronger search/filtering, restored community features, improved integration, and content quality control – Epic can transform Fab into a truly user-friendly unified marketplace. This will not only address current user frustrations but also encourage more developers to embrace the platform, ultimately fulfilling the promise of Fab as “a single destination to discover, share, buy and sell” high-quality assets for Unreal Engine and beyond.

Clear View at Redesigned Screens

Sources

^Reddit^–^{“FAB is the worst Marketplace I ever had the displeasure of using.”}^{– User discussion of Fab’s launch issues,}
^Reddit^–^{User comments on r/unrealengine threads}^{– various complaints about missing features, broken search, navigation bugs,}
^{Epic Games Support Forums}^–^{Feedback threads on Fab}^{– reports of Vault integration problems and feature requests (Wishlist, etc.),}
^{80.lv News}^–^{“Fab Received Search Improvements, UX Overhaul & Wishlists”}^{– announcement of a Fab update addressing some user feedback (wishlist, filters, etc.),}
^{Official Unreal Engine Blog}^–^{“Unreal Engine Marketplace is now Fab”}^{– Epic’s announcement of the migration, noting that star ratings carried over but text reviews/Q&A would not,}
^{User posts on social media (X/Twitter) – assorted real-time reactions from developers about Fab’s usability post-migration (e.g. comparing it with Unity Asset Store and ArtStation).}