Your game has source code. Does it have a licensable project?
A buyer asking for Unreal Engine 5 is asking for more than C++. Before applying a repository price to an old game, establish which project can actually be delivered and run.
You may own a shipped game, years of development work and a large source directory. That does not yet tell a training-data buyer what it can use. The missing piece could be a map, a Blueprint, a plugin license or the version of the engine needed to open the project.
In a game-data conversation reviewed on November 11, the buyer's latest recorded reply prioritizes UE5. Earlier questions ask whether the package includes the studio-owned assets and dependencies needed to run it, and who created those assets. This is a specific demand signal, not a purchase or a market-wide preference for Unreal over Unity.
The useful question for a studio is therefore: can we describe one complete, rights-cleared project before we put a dollar value on our catalog?
Four listings, four different readiness problems
We reviewed four current game listings in Rightmark's public catalog. This is a selected comparison, not a census of game developers. Every one is priced on request; none supplies a confirmed game-specific dollar rate.
| Public listing | What the owner describes | What still determines the deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Older mobile catalog | About 30 games, mostly Unity, from 16 years of work | Code has not been measured; scope and excluded third-party material need review |
| One Unity game | Dated private backups from 2021 onward; AI introduced in 2025 | Backups are not a Git history; identify the exact version and what it contains |
| One UE5 PC game | A commercial game released in 2024 | Project files, development history and build inclusion still need confirmation |
| UE VR collection | Four projects, three described as shipped | Engine versions, assets and history differ between projects |
Visible count: 4 selected listings; 4 priced on request; 0 published game-specific dollar quotes in this selection. Source: Rightmark private-sale catalog, checked November 11. Scope, shipment and volume statements are owner descriptions, not independent scans.
The VR listing makes the problem concrete. Its owner describes two main projects as roughly 95% Blueprint. The multiplayer project is also described as 5% C++. One has Perforce history; another has no Perforce history. Those percentages are an approximate description of the project, not a measured line-count split. A C++ total cannot represent all the work, and a history-rich project cannot stand in for every other title in the collection.
Why this question is timely
The September 23 Unity Insight research paper addresses a related technical problem: coding agents need relationships between scripts, scenes, prefabs and other serialized assets. Its index connects code with those assets. That is evidence of a technical need for project context, not evidence that the authors are buying our listings. Unity Insight paper.
Taken together with the current UE5 inquiry, the practical signal is to preserve relationships within a project. Do not strip a game down to its source files simply because a generic code appraisal counts lines. Equally, do not add third-party assets merely to make the build complete without checking whether those assets can be included in the proposed license.
The money: a repository rate is not a game estimate
Rightmark's current Price Index provides useful reference points, but the units matter.
| Dollar reference | Unit and stage | What a game owner should infer |
|---|---|---|
| $150 to $1,500 | USD per private repository, per sale; indicative standing-rate benchmark, Medium confidence | A reference for qualifying private code, not a quote for a complete Unity or Unreal game |
| $200 to $2,000 | USD per finished training task; published task-market benchmark, Medium confidence | A different deliverable that requires task construction and evaluation; not the code owner's automatic income |
| On request | All four selected game listings | The project needs a scoped quote; neither rate above establishes its value |
Source: Rightmark Price Index, Q4 2026, checked November 11. The task row cites Epoch AI's January research. These are benchmarks, not completed payments for the games in this article.
For a hypothetical studio with ten separate repositories that each qualified for the ordinary standing-rate route, ten times $150 to $1,500 would be $1,500 to $15,000 gross. That calculation assumes ten separately eligible sale units. Ten folders, ten branches or ten backups do not establish that assumption. We cannot apply it to the roughly 30-game listing without checking the actual units and terms.
Preparation also has a price. An illustrative 20 hours at an internal cost of $75 an hour is $1,500. That would consume the entire low end of that hypothetical ten-repository gross amount before other costs or fees. These are planning assumptions, not a measured studio bill or a recommendation to spend $1,500. Obtain feedback on the proposed package before rebuilding every old title.
The insight is not that game projects are cheap. It is that a price for the wrong unit is not a useful estimate, however large your original development budget was.
Start with one project and a reproducibility manifest
Use a short manifest to connect the buyer's requirements with what you actually hold.
- Identify engine
- Include dependencies
- Trace history
- Confirm rights
- Request a quote
Editorial preparation guide; not a measured funnel, premium schedule or acceptance guarantee.
| Step | What to write down | Decision it enables |
|---|---|---|
| Identify | Engine and exact version; project version; shipped or unfinished | Whether the buyer's engine requirement matches |
| Reproduce | Project files, maps, Blueprints, build steps and necessary assets | Whether the proposed package can be opened or run |
| Trace | Git, Perforce or dated backups; missing periods clearly marked | What history can genuinely accompany the project |
| Clear | Studio-owned material, contributor agreements and excluded dependencies | What may be considered for licensing |
| Price | Proposed sale unit, permitted use and preparation work | Which quote should be requested before more work begins |
This is our suggested preparation sequence, not a claim that each step earns a premium. Start with descriptions and an inventory. A buyer's interest in UE5 does not establish demand for every UE4 or Unity title, and the current UE5 inquiry does not make a runnable Unity project worthless. Route each project against an actual brief.
Sources and limits
The comparison uses four public catalog cards and an authenticated read of one current game buyer's recorded updates on November 11. Buyer identity, correspondence and private commercial terms are withheld. No project files were opened or rescanned. No game-specific offer, acceptance or payment was established. Research is cited as a technical trend; it is not used to manufacture a price premium.
The next useful outcome is a scoped review of one project, including what is missing and whether the buyer's use case fits. An ordinary Repo Check may inform a code assessment, but this note does not claim that it verifies every Blueprint, asset or Perforce dependency.
Studio-owned Unity and Unreal projects with the context to use them
The selected game listings are subject to owner confirmation. Describe the engine version, project files, development history and studio-owned assets you can include.
Start with one project and flag excluded plugins, artwork and other dependencies. See the game listings and their qualifications. An active private inquiry is not an open public purchase order.
Private-code reference, not a game quote
$150 to $1,500
USD per qualifying repository, per sale; Medium confidence benchmark. Complete game projects are priced on review.
The benchmark does not price Blueprints, a full catalog or the finished training tasks someone might build. Preparation costs, licensing terms and any applicable fees are still separate from gross proceeds.
Price Index, Q4 2026, checked November 11. Indicative benchmark, not an offer. All four selected game listings remain on request.
Describe one project before rebuilding the archive
Start a source-code appraisal with its engine, version, history and ownership scope. Explain if the main work is Blueprint or if the history is in Perforce or backups.
If the project needs a different assessment route, talk to Rightmark. A scoped review is the next step; it is not a commitment to buy.