The Asset Flip (The Jimquisition)

This thread is like a jim sterling shrine now lol. There's so many bad unitz games I'm tempted to make a better one. Maybe offer that as a pitch to the author to get a free copy ;P

 

@GarBenjamin

Steam has over 80M active accounts and it takes only a tiny minority of votes to get Greenlit worse Valve some time ago made it much easier to get Greenlit, basically once you pay your $100, do a video, some screenshots and half decent description your almost assured being Greenlit. It is just that easy and Valve does not look at the members who vote no, it is interested in your getting enough yes votes and as I pointed out Valve keeps lowering the bar on how many yes votes it needs to get Greenlit, once that happens your Greenlit and your in. Valve does not care that their are 42 pages of comments most of which removed saying it's UnitZ clone and that it looks like UnitZ with little to no changes, all that it care is that possible n members will buy it. Once your in you can now pick you own Forum Moderator that does nothing but remove threads and posts that say anything negative about the game and perm bans members who are just pointing out that the game is little more than UnitZ clone that will never be finished because the very week the developers released their so called game on Steam store they had already started another one on Greenlight which is nothing more than clone of another demo from Unity Asset Store. Steam is not bother that you have not one, not two, not even n early access games and n Greenlight games all going at same time and done by a single person that has little to no programming skills or any skills for that matter. All Valve cares about is that enough units are selling and that it is not losing money on it cause of returns being greater than monies coming it. Valve is also not interested that the a vast majority of the very people who are buying it are giving it all negative reviews and then asking for refund, while it's making money, it's still selling.

Also Valve does not really care that many of these so called games are Greenlit using votes that are bought with promises of free keys once the game is released which is what these people are doing either directly on Greenlight page or off Steam on their websites, private forums, youtube channels, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, Twitch streams. I mean fraud and vote buying is rampant with these people. And Valve does not even care when game is released and these people do not give out free keys and then the very people who voted only because they were promised a free key complain on the game's discussion area on Steam about not getting their promised free keys and all that happens is the Forum Moderators picked by the company removes their threads and bans them.

Oh and Valve certainly does not care that members who do not know better are not going to get what they paid for. The games are released early access, by the time one to two years go buy and the so called developers of these games have more than moved on it will be too late for anyone of these people to get a refund. Try to get refund for Early Access StarFroge or The Dead Linger, not at all asset flips, but a game which never the less failed in many ways, by the time people figured it out it was too late. And the people doing this figure they will be off as well with the money.

So its about making 30%, valve has all but run out of ideas of how to legally make its 30% and now is scraping the barrel where the scum is.

 

Pretty much... The man is on a roll, has found his calling, and he even coined "The Asset Flip". Putting jokes asset he is doing a public service highlighting this day after day so hopefully the number of Steam members who fall for this will be fewer and fewer. So in the end it's a win-win, he gets more hits and makes more money on Youtube and less people get their hard earned money taken from them by bunch of bad apples.

HardWorking Studio the author is hard at work improving the asset. I think we all should do one and have some fun with it. Just do proper attribution, remember it's not nice to take credit for someone elses work and do it for free. That should dry the swamp since there will be free version and these people then can't charge for it. Also the demo is available completely for free and good number of people actually play it. Actually I'm having so much fun I paid Valve the $100, give Jim Sterling some business, but with a twist. Hey it's summer I'm bored and as with any good Steam account I have my library full of games I just bought and wasted a small fortune on that I will never play. Got to keep Gabe happy and giving him money to work on HL3 (LOL)

Now don't get me wrong I have nothing against people using assets that they get off some site as part of their games, I just think they need to give proper attribution so that the customer knows what they are getting and that they not take credit for other people's work and obscure the fact that they themselves did not create it and have no ability to even maintain it or do any of the things that they are promising on their Steam Greenlight/Store page. Oh and it has to be more than just the demo off the asset that you selling.

I have less of an issue with games like Once Bitten Twice Dead or The Walking West which put together a handful of assets, my only complaint there is that they are not being transparent, they are not giving credit where credit is due, no attributions and if you run the game Once Bitten Twice Dead you will see there are no Credits which is something I never seen in a game, every game has Credits and they usually go on and on and one. I also have issue with the developers of Once Bitten Twice Dead doing multiple games at the same time when they are like 3 people, 2 artists which I guess do all the pretty arkwork and once programmer that appears to being doing little to nothing, so how can they be selling Once Bitten Twice Dead Early Access broken, unfinished and at the same time doing spending most of their time working on One Final Breath and if you look at their Steam profiles playing video games, not their own. So it just ends up being asset flipping and perm banning members who complain in any way or even do a bad review and removing their threads and posts, which is what is happening.

 

Yeah I get that Steam / Valve are focused on making money. They need to be as business owners. If they are not making money the business will be gone. Any business owner needs to have that same view. The 42 pages of comments is a tiny drop in the barrel of 80 million users. People who are complaining are much more likely to be the ones who are posting. Maybe for every 100 or more people who really likes a product one will take the time to post a positive comment. In general. Whether it is on Amazon or whatever the vast majority of people who are happy with their purchase or excited about a product will say nothing publicly at all. And it is probably even much less for cases like these. Any person who was thinking of writing a positive comment would most likely decide not to out of fear the complainers would call them stupid or otherwise attack them. So, instead most, if not all, of the people who have something positive to say will likely say nothing at all and instead just vote for Greenlight and look forward to the release.

Again, it is just a different way of looking at things. If these developers are using websites, private forums, youtube channels, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, Twitch streams and so forth to market their game and get support for it to be greenlit that is probably something that many developers could learn from. Obviously, they are doing something right to have achieved that success and especially when there are people who feel so strongly against their products.

There is little that can be done to stop people from "making" whatever games they want to and release them to get their share of the game money making pie. There have always been scammers. There always will be. I am not saying they are scammers just that you see them as scammers. There have always been people willing to do nearly anything and everything to make money. There always will be until money is not so important. Remember Unity's vision is the democratization of game development: making game development accessible to as many people as possible. They did not say making game development accessible to as many hardworking people as possible. Or to as many honest, ethical and smart people as possible. Or to as many qualified game developers as possible. No.... simply to as many people as possible. Since it is not qualified in any way that definition must include all of the scammers, all of the people who just want to flip assets and reskin as many games as they can to make money.

Do you think we would see all of this happening if UnitZ cost $500 and Unity itself was only available for $2500 (no free version)?

I am just saying you have to look at the full picture to see what is really the cause of this. These people have always been out there. They always will be. The difference... the reason why we are now seeing so many games being made including asset flips, mass game reskinning, outright stealing of developers games and so forth is because this has now been made accessible to everyone.

 

I do not think I disagree with what you are saying in any way, but why could they not have like button with "Credits" and when customers press on it, which they seldom do anyways, they give proper attribution. I mean every other game that I have, other than this kind, has a Credits and pages and pages of names. Why is it so hard for these people just to do business the way others before them have. And why can't they develop one game at a time, its hard enough to do one, but two or even three. So they don't disclose to customers what it is they are getting and they release it early access and make it sound like they did it and are working on it, when in fact they and everyone who looks more than knows that they are not and are really working on their next new thing. I mean if you look they start the new thing even before the last new thing gets on to Steam store. So I do not think we are actually in any disagreement, its about them dotting the i's and crossing the t's like all the other Studios do and about them about even getting out of early access the games they are selling before abandoning them to go work on other games. Again I think we also focusing on like 1-2, perhaps 3 studios with perhaps half a dozen games of the many thousands on Steam. So its us just bored to death, than anything else. We sort of here cause Jim Sterling is web personality, and we find it entertaining and just have nothing really to talk about so we pick the needle in the giant haystack to chew the fat over, i mean it's either this or boring tv or getting drunk at bar. At least here it feels like something we are doing... Anyways by tomorrow or the next day Jim will surf for us the next one which we will more likely than not repeat the same arguments with, filling the thread with endless pages of this kind of post... I guess we could do it at Jim's place, but at least here are asset developers and game developers, there they have bunch of kids yelling... So far nobody here is yelling, so its better wateringhole, so thank god for Unity, as Jim would say, ok he would say thank god for him...

 

Hey we have another one to chat about, just now, JimZ

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=475414125

Look at the faces of the zombie

I guess we will soon have another Jimquisition and soon after a DMCA take down.

At least the member was nice enough to donate $100 charity, and perhaps even nice enough to spend $50 on UnitZ...

And while the fireworks my be dieing down where you are this most happiest of 4th, they certainly are just beginning on this topic, well if Jim can help it to keep his ratings up and the money rolling in, hey what can I say other than what TotalBiscuit has not already said all the controversy is good for business

 

Yep I get what you are saying. I think there are just so many possibilities. I mean we don't really know exactly who "made" these and why they did it. I can think of many possible scenarios.

• People who are bored and just did it for fun
• People who need money and thought flipping the asset was a legitimate way to make extra money
  
• People who intentionally take all of the shortcuts they can to make money (even just a bit) as easily and quickly as possible
• People who wanted to test the waters and try out the Steam Greenlight process so they know what they are in for when they make their real game
• People who wanted to do a quick & easy market test to see if there is any demand for such a game before investing much more money and time into development
  
• People who just wanted to "do something" and now can say hey I did it! I made a game and it is on Steam Greenlight!
• And you know.... some of these could be kids who just think it's cool. I have no idea if there is any age requirement for Steam. All I know is there seem to be a lot of kids using Unity and it seems like many are publishing games on cell phones so why not Steam? I am actually surprised a person does not need to be 18 years old to do that??
• People who just want to "make a point" and are doing it just to "get Jim going" and maybe drive him crazy lol

That is just a quick list off the top of my head. I have no idea who these people are or why they are doing it. Could be any of the things on the list above or something else entirely.

 

LOL! Well that one I think is an obvious "try to get Jim going" project. I just don't see why someone would spend the money on such a thing. Maybe these people are all loaded with cash and just having fun?

 

Wow, @im, that's not the first time they've done that either. There was poxelZ or something like that which did this.

Hopefully Jim MF SterlingSon reaches a similar conclusion. He's been pretty emoted about these UnitZ buy-build-upload schemes.

 

The credits on a big game title list the members of the team that made the game. That is different from the relationship of an asset creator and a game developer. The asset creators in the Unity Asset Store are not members of the teams that make every game that their assets are used in. The bottom line is if you want your name listed in the credits, you should go work for a studio that makes the game, instead of releasing assets on the asset store.

In addition to that, some asset creators would not want their name associated with specific games, such as poorly polished games or games surrounded with controversy.

 

good point didn't think of that. in a way this have both a positive/negative impact on HardWorking Studio, I do not think he or anyone would like to get their assets made famous this way. In a way it is a tribute to the studios hard work that people with very, if any skills/abilities, and little money can take their asset and make something out of it, including getting on to Steam store. Still Steam is starting to look like a different place than I remember, its gone from being prestigious to being sort of a flea market or even open air marketplace where you have established vendors next to less than reputable ones and Steam taking a cut from all of them, buyer beware, more than ever.

 

For consumers? Definitely not xD But seeing a compilation of unitZ compilations (haha, get it?) is making me want to own that asset.

 

What is sad is that this isn't even original. PoxelZ already did this and Jim Sterling already did the episode, back on June 10th.

 

Jim does Once Bitten, Twice Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=rFNcedgg-KA

 

How does "twice dead" even make sense?

 

it has catchy ring to it...

 

I think Jim's coverage of the UnitZ based games is literally encouraging more people to make UnitZ based games and put them on Steam. It is a feedback loop at this point where people are delivering the exact thing that he can complain about, and then the cycle repeats. The only way Jim can truly stop the UnitZ problem is by not highlighting the UnitZ based games anymore.

 

Yeah, I agree.

When we buy assets for our game, we are purchasing the license to use them in our game. It is not expected we put the asset developer in our credits. I cannot imagine the list of credits one would have if they use everything from RTP to TC to a bunch of prop assets, some scripting assets, etc. The asset lists and credits would overwhelm the team members who worked to put this all together.

Typically if you contract with an outside developer to make your animations or models, you buy the license and do not put them in the credits. AAA companies have a lot of credits because they have a lot of people on their teams and they may even consider subcontractors as team members.

For indies, it is a little different. We get a little here, a little there and make a lot of it ourselves.

Again...asset flipping in the way it is described by Jim is really lame. BUT it does not violate Unity's license and unless the asset developer has added something to his license, it is not illegal. Valve has no standing to do anything about it. I just hope Jim's videos don't ruin good things like the "asset store" for those of us who use it properly.

 

Oh he can't stop now, he's on a roll and besides this is his calling and it would kill his ratings, plus we all eating it up video after video, what else do we have to talk about each and every day, this is a soup opera where we stand around the watercooler day after day discussing the latest one. Also I bet this is even helping sell those games cause people buy them for as little as $0.19 to see what the fuss is all about. Its win win win all around, even for HardWorking Studio who must be selling this asset like hot cakes every one want to troll Greenlight and Jim and maybe make a quick buck. Plus without it my message count on this and other forums would take forever to reach new hights. I'm thinking before the months is over I'd have gone from low 1000's post to an easy 2000 posts on Unity Forums

 

Easy. First you die when you become a zombie. Second time is when someone puts shotgun to your head.

 

I agree that Jim will keep doing it, because the feedback loop continues to give him excellent material to talk about. I also agree that it is probably helping with sales of the games made with UnitZ. A lot of people are happy to spend $0.19 to see what all of the fuss is about.

 

Wow ... I actually made it through 7 minutes of the video. Sorry to say - but I can't stand Jim Sterling.

I also asume everything has been said in this thread already but I will still give my two cents because I can
There always have been people creating sub-par games. ALWAYS. I remember in 1998 when I had to buy video game magazines with demo CDs there usually were a few freeware games or games by readers on the disc as well. And many of them were made with game creators and used 90% of the art provided with the game creator. Often even just the example files with slightly altered levels. After some time it was easy to spot them. Or they used art ripped from Duke 3D, Hexen or Doom.

Also in the Amiga500 era there were game-discs released every month (or every 3 months) for what would now be 10 EUR with very, VERY varying quality.

The problem is neither that Unity allows people to publish something directly and sell it nor is it that people use the system. It's been done before years before Jim Sterling made a deal out of Unity's and Unreal's marketplace projects.
The problem here is that people usually would expect a better quality control from Steam or Google or Apple. Ultimately at least Steam (and GOG far before Steam) have implemented refunds. So now people actually CAN get refunds on cookie cutter game templates. Other than that it's a shame that gamers have to do this - but as a customer you should just look and inform yourself before buying any S***ty title with screenshots that don't look good. Or like something 5 other people have as well.

Also I don't expect this to go away in the future as well but it will slightly shift again, and again, and again. Ultimately it's up to each marketplace to represent their own quality for users to trust them. And it's also up to users to still use their brain before paying money.

 

I guess. At a first glance it looks like it means to say that the zombification process kills you twice or something. It'd make more sense if the virus made your body decompose and then actually address that universal zombie plot hole that eventually your brain and muscles would be gone.

 

Actually i felt the same way about Mr. Sterling, before any of this I just could not stomach any of his videos, I'm just not into Web personalities. Now I can't stop hitting the refresh to see which one of these he's going to do next. So go figure. It's like better than watching TV, it's become the new Dallas (very old soup opera).

 

It took me a while to warm up to Rich (reviewtechusa). After watching long enough, I did see that on average he covers all viewpoints. I think the only people I can stand to watch 100% of their videos no matter what the subject is would be....

HowToBasic (100% no eggceptions)
Markiplier (excluding sub reaction videos)
Good Mythical Morning (excluding music videos)

Wow, even 2 of my top 3 had exceptions.

 

So you actually just like HowToBasic .... ?
At least it's a useful channel.

 

I like the recent changes to the audio. As for content, the only one that I've wanted to watch more than once... I probably shouldn't name. Blood, blood everywhere!

 

Most of these unit-z clones have really bad gameplay. There is no gameplay. Make a unit-z game where theres a day-night system and say survive 21 day/nights of zombies (where you gather supplies during the day -- defend your base at night) the zombie hoards get more powerful as you go along until they finally "die out".

 

It's like the Pewdiepie effect: Pewdiepie plays game -> Pewdiepie reacts to game -> people see this and make "Pewdiepie bait" to get a reaction -> Cycle repeats itself.

Caution, Here there be Rants:

On the topic of Jim, his recent "interview" with DigitalHomicide (makers of Slaughtering Grounds) is incredibly cringeworthy. I've rarely known any developer to be that bull-headed about the quality of their games (disclaimer: I have worked on licensed dreck across the spectrum of mobiles, consoles, and PC in the past). No product is perfect, and not everyone will see the positives, if there are any at all. However, the guy tries (and repeated fails to) trap Jim in some kind of weird baited argument, and then switches topics when he fails to get what he wants. Especially bad is a "you and I are very much alike" almost lifted from TV tropes. The guy also spends a good 10 minutes talking about how he purchased the Gun sounds for Slaughtering Grounds from a professional company that records sounds for movies and the recordings are super-high-quality and how dare you not notice this.

Sad thing is, I felt this sort of thing was a long time coming when mobile and Facebook opened the doors for easy monetization and sale of apps and the types of things that would once be passed around gamemaker forums or posted to Newgrounds for free as beginner projects or early demos starting getting put on the same purchasing pedestal as your polished, focused indie title or your whizbang open-world AAA FPS. The only real defense is consumer vigilence (a la Jim) and holding yourself to a higher standard of quality given whatever resources you have available. After listening to Jim, it's clear he has no hatred for those how use asset packs, but rather those who either do as little as possible with them or slap them together haphazardly with no regard for art direction. I'm of the opinion that these types of assets are a great way to get a proof-of-concept or tech demo up of the ground, but the bulk of the work is refining an idea.

Rant over.

 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/360590/discussions/0/530646080860590187/

All they have to do is look at comment area for Jim's video

And sure you won't find much in the game's discussion area cause everyone I know who has posted anything has been permanently banned and threads and posts completely removed, but just look at game's reviews.

 

I think it's Valve's right to do so as well. It is their absolutely correct legal decission no matter if I actually agree to it on a personal level or not.

Personally I would want a slightly stricter form or curation instead of Greenlight. I would want everybody to be able to sell on steam as long as a minimum of quality is ensured. But I can also respect Valve's (and Google's and Apple's decissions) either way. It is their plattform and thus it's their rules. No matter what - as an independent developer with Unity and Steam and everything else people have never been closer to actually being able to publish their works. And as long as this is still possible without AAA gatekeeping it's all good, IMO.

Improvements and changes will come over time and with the users and the market.

 

I agree as well with @Not_Sure . If people want to produce junk and try to sell it, they should suffer the consequences of public criticism & refunds.

They need only not ignore the 'no' votes. Maybe when games are 50-50 or worse, some valve staff can check out what people are saying in the comments before greenlighting the title. There might be a reason for all of the no votes

Haha, that it is. The voices were strange. They don't sound sincere, but they were consistent. Spooky.

 

Yup. I think it should be a ratio thing. Like over, say. 65% of yes votes at the time of checking = game is greenlit.

 

The problem with doing something like this is let's say your game has 3000 votes with a 20% Yes and 80% No voting ratio. While some people would look at it like it failed and should not be greenlit because 80% of votes are No... on the other hand you have 600 people voting Yes. Those 600 people are your target market and should be the ones you and Steam pay most attention to. The yes voters are basically the ones that are likely to produce money for you and Steam for this particular game. The No voters will likely produce no money for you and Steam for this game. I don't know how others including Steam look at it. I'd pay more attention to the number of yes votes in these cases. Imagine you make something that is quality but just so different that FPS players don't like it and the only ones who vote cast a No. The casual gamers also don't like it and the ones who vote cast a No. The only ones who vote Yes are the people who can appreciate "something different". So going by x percentage of Yes votes would be sort of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I absolutely agree. How many of the NO people are voting No because this game doesn't fit into their own personal criteria for games. Maybe it is a game with an education stance, or a game that is nonviolent, or a game for role players. There are folks who vote no based completely on the description at the top of the page, which is fine,but seems unfair to the 600 people who have been longing for a game to fit their own niche.

As the mother of teens, I know they often have very strong feelings about things, even before they try them. Certain games or clothes or anything else, simply do not fit into their realm and they reject immediately. This is not uncommon. When I describe some of the elements of my game to the kind of folks who like WoW or GuildWars, I get an almost immediate...Thanks but no thanks. But when I describe it to the right people, they are very interested.

The yes votes should be the ones counted, not the no's. Same with reviews. Again, some folks just hate anything that doesn't fit in their narrow view. If the review actually talked about technical problems, bugs, quality of graphics, then great. But how many will say....boring, graphics are too cartoony, story is too depressing, game is too hard/easy....all very subjective.

 

@GarBenjamin I guess that's a fair point. People who vote no is basically the entire steam community who doesn't vote yes. Maybe that should be changed. No : Yes should be more meaningful than 100,000,000 : 600. Yes/No should be changed to something like...

>I would buy this on steam
>This game is a UnitZ compilation

 

From what I understand Valve does not look at the no votes, for all the reasons given, it basically just looks to see that their is enough yes votes / interest within a period of time in relation to other greenlight items, I think.

 

I've been working for a company I am sure would have a lot of no votes on steam as well but they still had their market share in "yes-s" and became pretty successful actually. Also the internet is a highly negative place and not every gamer really knows how good a game is when he/she votes on it in greenlight. Some vote out of boredom or spite. I know it's not easy and not everything is black and white but that's why I would actualy advocate a form of curation.

People who run dedicated game stores usually can tell a solid game from an amateurish or cookie cutter one. Users who haven't even played the game can't do that necessarily.

 

They just look at many yes votes you got in relation to the current top 100. There's probably abit more to it because they do t just always pick the top 100

 

I was thinking about this a while back, and I don't think it is quite that easy. I logged into Steam and went through Steam Greenlight as a user looking to judge upcoming games. There are some horrible looking games that everybody would vote 'no' for, and those were easy to 'no' vote. However, there were also some games that looked great yet were not something I would actually want to play.

Steam's question is "Would you buy this game if it were on Steam?" There are genres of games that I would never purchase regardless of the quality of the specific game. I assume that is true for most people. So looking at 'no' votes is not a useful metric, because Steam cannot tell if the 'no' vote was because the genre did not appeal or because the game looked horrible.

After thinking about this for a while, I decided that looking at only the 'yes' votes actually does make sense based on the way Steam worded the question. If enough people say they would possibly buy a game, then the game should be available on Steam, regardless of the ratio of 'yes' and 'no' votes.

 

The problem with curation is that it cannot accurate predict the winners. If curators had been tasked a few years ago which games would have been hits on marketplace today, I'd bet the curators would have missed some titles. If I was in charge of curation, I would have missed Minecraft, Rust, H1Z1, DayZ, Unturned, etc. Other curators would have missed Counter Strike. Everybody has different tastes and that warps our ratings of games even when we attempt to be impartial. The community as a whole will always be a better judge than individual curators.

 

All those games very easy fulfill the criteria of being a solid and sellable games, though. Neither of them was amateurish or cookie-cutter. And by amateurish I mean in the bad sense. Simply: games that don't make any effort at all or are just too weak to be sold.

 

's been addressed, mate. Because of the wording on the question, no is defined as pretty much everyone who does not say yes. So if a game gets 1000 votes, that's still 1000 yes vs 100,000,000 no. Yes is a good enough metric because the question is would you buy the game.

 

The cheap drama continues...


More video reviews

Member banned just for posting links to assets used

https://d.maxfile.ro/uoncwndzfp.PNG


More threads

About "Asset usage" accusations.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/the_doctor_is_in/recommended/360590

What's with the community fascism?
http://steamcommunity.com/app/360590/discussions/0/530646080865887245/

Forum moderator "as it has been said by the devs that they are not using it " (it being UnitZ)
http://steamcommunity.com/app/360590/discussions/0/530646080865887245/#c537402115071206955


When will it end, set your clocks to Valve Time...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Valve+Time

 

The trolling ban is funny. My browser didn't like the website though.

 

Yeah and get this one I found by reading comment area of these YouTube channels, it looks like they didn't just ban that guy, they banned a bunch of people, one poor slob just for writing the top review that they didn't like

http://steamcommunity.com/id/the_doctor_is_in/recommended/360590

I went over and gave it a thumbs up!


Even more people that they perm banned this guy for just mentioning another game!

http://puu.sh/iRKlL/cfa84ecf2e.png

Advertising they called it...

 

The more I see these things and Jim's videos the more my view is shifting. I think these people on steam (and Jim) all moaning & groaning and being so obsessed with finding out if a game is using Unity assets is becoming the real issue. It seems like it is becoming a witch hunt.

They probably really mean the games themselves are not very good and have very little to them. Yet they seem to be focusing on "this one uses Unity assets too!". Just seems like they have become so caught up in it they are focusing on the wrong thing. Is the issue really "OMG! Another one using the UnitZ asset!" or is it the games have nothing to them and just are not very good games? I'd like to see someone make a game with more to it, more interaction and game-play using the UnitZ assets and see if they still just attack and point out "Another UnitZ game!!" or if they actually can see past that to the game itself.

 

@GarBenjamin Once these developers start using UnitZ as a base, I'll agree with you. For the time being, the witch hunt is both the proper term and well warranted since people aren't changing the asset at all

We can intervene later. First, let's watch the witches burn.

 

I need to check out this UnitZ and see exactly what all it does for devs.

I was thinking it is only models so the developers are creating the environments, coding the movement, weapon firing, collisions and so forth. From that perspective it seems like they may have a true MVP although too much emphasis on the M. If, however, UnitZ actually has these scenes already created and has code for the movement, attacking, zombie AI, collisions and so forth then yeah I agree... they are truly doing nothing but recycling the asset. Either way I still think too much focus is being placed on using Unity assets. They should just leave that out of it and focus on each game specifically and say what is wrong with the game itself.