Selling on the Unity Asset Store - Earn 70% each sale, non-exclusive!

Discussion in 'Assets and Asset Store' started by caitlyn, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Thanks for all the information guavaman!
    I had a look at the animations and 3 of them are from free packages- 1 from the asset store mocap library and two from two other sources - the rest is mixamo. So the easiest and fastest way to go is to replace the asset store animation with a mixamo animation. I'll check the licenses for the other two and replace them with mixamo stuff as well, if need be.

    Yea and I will leave out the camera script and put it into a little demo scene instead, where people can move around with the character and play a bit with the flamethrower and see if they like it. In my opinion this is a far better way to showcase a character than showing just animations without giving people the possibility to test play the character.
    So if this is fine for Unity I will do it that way.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
  2. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    And while I am at it and to complicate things even more:
    I've been using unity free for about two years now and recently obtained a one year student license for Unity pro. I did this to get Unity 5 as soon as possible to check if my textures are working with the new PB shading system. They should, because they were created that way - but I will not know till I can try and see what I have to adjust. That's the reason for my one year pro student license.
    All the scripts and the animator state machine that I want to include in the package were made in Unity free and do not utilize any pro features. So when I am going to make the fire effect do I have to switch my license back to Unity free to do that, because my student license doesn't allow me to use Unity pro for commercial purpose? Or am I fine if I use Unity pro as long as I do not include Unity pro features? I don't know how Unity checks for that, but I want to avoid undisirable surprises now.

    Here is the link to the model in case anybody is interested:
    http://gernotwechselberger.com/josephDrustModel.html
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
  3. guavaman

    guavaman

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    @GernotW I updated my previous post with another clarification about Unity's policies on using their content in packages. It seems they're also okay with moderate use of their materials even integrated into a commercial product to be sold on the store. See the post for the quote.

    Do you want to know whether if will affect your model or just from a legal perspective? Technically, using the Pro version for making your model is going against the EULA. That said, it's not going to make any difference to the output files. It's possible the editor may send some version information to Unity when you submit the asset to the store (not sure), but that doesn't affect the final package. But if you're not using the pro features anyway, why not just use the free version? The only other benefit you get is the dark skin. Switching between free and pro is super easy. I do it all the time to test during development of my extensions. Just go to Manage License - > Return License to go back to free.

    Cool model!
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
  4. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Thanks! It was a lot of fun and a lot of pain; but also the amount of time and work I had to put in is astronomical.

    The new quote clarifies things really well. So it is not as strict as it looked to me at first glance.
    And I'll say good bye to Unity pro for the fire effect then...
  5. guavaman

    guavaman

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    I can imagine... It's been many years since I did high resolution 3D modeling and it was grueling enough back then before Z-brush and the like took it to the next level. I'd love to get back into it again at some point.

    This only pertains to assets made by Unity Technologies. All other assets on the store follow the EULA as written.
  6. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Hi again!

    I asked at the Simplygon forums if I am allowed to sell my character with LODs created by Simplygon but it looks like I won't get an answer there since it was already a week ago. And since simplygon is a service at the asset store I am going to ask the question here one more time.
    A previous post stated that there is no way that an asset from the asset store can be redistributed at the asset store. But in that case it is my asset that gets modified. I pay for the modification and sell the modification - it stays all the time my asset I suppose. So I should be allowed to do that, or am a wrong?
  7. orb

    orb

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    670
    It doesn't become their property when you submit something. If it did, how would this service be useful enough to pay for?
  8. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Well, let's pose the question in a different way:
    If I include the LODs for my model the buyer gets everything in one package. He only has to pay me.
    If I do not include them (and he needs LODs) he has to pay me and the reduction service. The price gets higher and he has to do additional work, that he doesn't have to do, if I include them.
    The service is useful in either case, but they can reduce the model not only one time but many times if it sells good and every customer has to do the LODs himself.
  9. guavaman

    guavaman

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    I don't see anything in the EULA that prevents you from doing this. The only portion of the EULA that I can identify that covers use is this:

    2.2, which has all the restrictions, is only concerned with embedding and distributing assets, which you are not doing. You are using the asset as software to modify your models for distribution. I don't see anything in the license covering this or restricting this. In fact, I'd wager it's not there because the asset store originated as a way to distribute media assets (models, textures, etc.) and there are many many things about the asset store that reflect this legacy use case. For example, there is absolutely no special treatment of Software assets in any way on the store, from distribution methods, to the license, to the upgrade model, to copy protection, etc. Those are serious limitations for software developers and I've been saying they need to redesign the store to support proper software distribution for a long time now instead of making is fit into a texture map distribution mold. However, this turns out good for you. In my view, since you are not embedding anything in your asset that is part of the Simplygon package, I'd say you're good. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see anything in the EULA forbidding this use.

    The user doesn't have to pay Autodesk (or the dev of whatever modeling prog you use) for the service of creating the model. Nor do they have to pay Adobe for the service of creating the textures. Etc, etc...
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2014
  10. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    I am not sure if we have a misunderstanding on this one. What I meant was: If I create the LODs the user doesn't have to do it. If I do not create them, he has to do it himself (if he needs LODs), because he can use the reduction service with the (unreduced) model he bought from me and will have to pay for that of course.

    Other than that: Thanks for your help guavaman, very much appreciated!
  11. guavaman

    guavaman

    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    I was trying to make the point that you use many software packages during the production of your model and none of these packages require that you pay them anything extra over the cost of the software to sell the resulting output. If the logic went something like: Simplygon is losing business because you are making the LODs and selling them with your model versus the user buying Simplygon so they can make the LODs themselves. Maybe that's not what you were getting at. Regardless, there's nothing in the EULA forbidding this use, so you have the right to sell it as long as it doesn't include any content from the Simplygon asset.
  12. GernotW

    GernotW

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    11
    Ah okay, got it now. Thanks!