Why my asset has been declined? (Case 696873)

Hi all,

I submited my anthill model and yesterday it has been declined. I want to know the reasons of declining, I
think that asset store is the place where all Unity's users can share their assets. And I think what my model very useful - a month ago I wanted to by model like it in asset store, but asset store hasn't any anthill model.

Thanks for reply

 

A picture and some info about the asset would be helpful for feedback. polycount, texture quality, PBR compatible, etc.

Also Unity sends an email listing the reason for the decline - I've been told. What is the reason they listed?

Unity expects a level of quality in every asset they accept, the store is not a repository for any and all assets.

 

They send generic letter:

And I think that my model have a hight level of quality

 

They do not send out generic letters, everybody else says Unity gives a specific reason an asset was declined, so what was the reason they gave for declining the submission?

 

But I got this leter only

 

So let's see it?

 

I think you're wrong there...

And not to hijack this thread, but it is kind of an issue that there isn't a reason given for a package being declined.

I had the exact same thing happen (case 695706). This is definitely not my best work, and that's why I chose to make it free when I submitted it. I don't think that it's so horrible that it's unusable... I'd still like to know why it was rejected, even if it's because it's stupid or too simple. As far as I can tell, I followed the submission guidelines perfectly. I've attached the exact package that was uploaded. It's biting is animated in 2 ways.



And the only email I received:

And my reply that has yet to be responded to after a week:

So what's the deal?

 

Wow - that really isn't very good feedback at all. Maybe @Sykoo can chime in. He mentioned before an asset he submitted that didn't get approved, but if memory serves he had some proper feedback on "WHY" the asset was declined.

I only have one asset on the store, that is free for use, and all I can say is there are very specific procedures in the instructions that need to be followed to the letter. And of course quality is important.
I think your 'ball of mouths' seems ok for an asset, but there are things that can't be determined.
Doe the model import correctly, are there errors when opened, is the mesh overly complex, are the animations clean and work as needed, are the textures setup for both Unity4x and Unity5, were all the support files included? Many variables to consider, other than quality.

Please update here @IFL if you finally get proper feedback.
Still awaiting OP picture and info about his asset.

 

Well it's a weird model. I don't understand it. I don't intend to offend anyone but I'd rather (personally) not litter up the asset store with every little object, I mean it's better the asset store is filled with high quality useful assets. There comes a danger where everyone feels their cube or sphere needs to be in, and asset store gets flooded with low quality stuff, which is bad, and I don't need to explain why it's bad, but I guess there's also that angle where the asset store staff don't want to offend people.

It's not really intended to be a 3D free model dump, but an actual store, with occasional free items. It's not the asset anything, it's the unity asset store, and people would rightfully expect to go there and purchase some high quality solutions.

Quality > Quantity and all that.

 

What's useful depends on the game being made. I don't think people should make decisions on what is useful or considered "quality" to other people, personally.

 

Unity people have every right to make decisions on what is useful or considered quality. I agree with hippocoder. The asset store isn't for all assets to be dumped regardless of it's usefulness or quality.
Turbo Squid and other well known repositories can fill that area.
The asset store should uphold quality and usefulness above quantity.

And last resort - if an asset is declined through the submission process, there is always the opportunity to sell it or give it away for free on your own web site. A lot of character models can be sold or given away that way. But if a character isn't properly rigged and animated with high quality textures - it should not be included on the asset store.

IFL - which category did you list your asset as? character, static environment asset?

 

They have the right, but I still don't agree with it. There are a huge amount of types of games that can be made, and those games may have a very wide variety of asset requirements. Again, 'usefulness and quality' are subjective. Unless you're talking about something such as: clearly the person put no effort in designing it, etc. I was just saying that just because a ball of mouths is 'weird' doesn't mean it isn't useful and shouldn't be accepted, for example.

 

I do agree with it, but it's alright if we disagree about that.
You are correct usefulness and quality is subjective, but we don't know if the asset was rejected because it's just weird. There are many variables to consider, other than quality and usefulness.
I think if the mouth ball was classified as a 3D character, that could be why, or if it had no animations - that is one good reason for rejection. Any one error in the submission process could have also been a reason for rejection.

I think we can both agree - better feedback from Unity in the email about "why" it was rejected would definitely be helpful.

 

The package is in my last post. AFAIK, I'm good on all of those items you listed.

@hippocoder - No offense taken. I agree about not filling up the store with garbage assets. I really just wanted to know what the submission process was like. If I had any feedback, I would know what I would need to do in the future with other submissions.

Character/Creature, I think, because that was the closest option to what it is.

 

https://unity3d.com/asset-store/sell-assets/submission-guidelines

I'm going to guess that many aspects of that guide came into play.

 

Thank you for tagging me, theANMATOR2b!

Yes, I submitted a few assets before, but they were all simple. There was one that I specifically worked towards and really gave some effort though and it was SurvivalEngine. It did not get accepted due to some picture issues and it being a little too simple, you only had to drag across some scripts to apply them. I took the little amount of info they provided me with and tried to learn something out of it.

Now I made SurvivalEngine 2 and submitted to the Asset Store (I should receive an answer today or tomorrow according to their time giving), and it's so much more than just a script that you need to drag to your player object or anything in general. I made a whole new editor extension, which I think is necessary at least a little bit if you're making an asset programatically, because it looks so much better!

Also, they pay lots of attention to how great documentation you've got in your asset, that can be how to get in contact with you, instructions to get started with the asset etc. Basically, necessary information that any developer would need!

 

...And isn't it a great thing they do? If it was like this:

Then it it'd be a wild west S*** hole with loss of trust in the store. The same happened with mobile, and everyone went freemium which means premium apps on the mobile stores simply do not exist, and remain for consoles etc. You get lots of small apps (some of good quality, but small).

Even mobile stores have some quality control. Without it, you might as well just be hosting a free resources dump, like anywhere else on the internet, customer faith would be eroded in Unity, and Unity would suffer as a business, and so would the product.

So yeah, I'm glad stuff is being denied if it's not good enough. Remember. it's not a right to be on this store, or any store unless you own the store.

 

Would you mind pointing to the guideline(s) that I didn't follow or explaining why denied submissions shouldn't be told the reason for denial? Per your link:

That kind of implies that there will and should be feedback.

Survival Engine 2 looks very promising. Thanks for the insight! Though, I think this thread is mostly about how the Asset Store isn't providing that feedback necessary to improve/learn.

Except ratings, reviews, and featured-content keep the garbage under wraps. Look at Amazon and ebay. They sell products and services (like the Asset Store) instead of experiences, assistants, and time-drainers like the app-stores you mentioned. They're also the largest wild west s*** holes ever created. That said, I do think that the cost for Unity to host the garbage is likely not worth it to them, and without enforced standards of holding-out, lies and fraud would run rampant. I just vehemently disagree that a barrier-less market (with consumer feedback-sharing and holding-out standards) is somehow of a lesser value or less trust-worthy to the consumers. If they are going to have quality barriers, then it'd be most beneficial (to both buyers & sellers) to at least tell potential sellers when their quality isn't above the set standards instead of giving no reason.
That's all kind of beside the point of this thread though. I don't think I have an inherent right to be in the store, but I think I do have a right to expect the feedback that the store says they'll give.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words
Yes, I'm sorry if I went a little too deep but I was just trying to show him what I did in order to overcome the first part of the issue, but the second part won't be solved until U.T decides that we, developers, need more information and feedback!

 

Cool but they're not actually stores. They're marketplaces with the onus of quality being on the individual. Or do you think you can walk in and start selling in walmart or whatever chain near you? Didn't think so.

People somehow think that the non curated experience is a good one. It isn't. If the asset store turned into the wild west, I wouldn't spend a penny on it. I wouldn't dare. It would be impossible to check if any of it was legit.

 

@IFL I think the feedback point in the letter you received is "consistent with the criteria considered in our approval process" but to the point of helpful feedback, that feedback is pretty vague. It'd be nice if that particular feedback was a little more specific. What point in the approval process criteria did the asset not meet? Only Unity knows.

 

Here (in the middle of the US), WalMart, Crest, and Aldi's all sell local products and produce from local people and businesses. The process for selling through them is a bit more difficult than just walking in the door, but only because of legal forms and regulatory compliance. Stores near you probably do similar.
That aside, I think it's neat that you're saying that the Asset Store is more akin to WalMart than Amazon or Ebay. Also, I'm surprised you have yet to address the importance of submission feedback, seeing that you're a mod interested in threads staying on topic and all. You just keep harping on about how important it is that the Asset Store reject garbage. I'll say it again: I agree. I think it's bad for their business to do otherwise. But that doesn't negate their claim that they would provide feedback on the quality of submissions instead of just telling me to look at the submission guidelines:

I thought you were a hippo, not a troll. I never said anything about a non-curated asset store. I specifically listed featured-content as a positive-control mechanism in a garbage-filled asset store and holding-out standards to combat lies and fraud. Reviews and ratings (which I also specifically mentioned) are used to organize the content by quality. All of that makes for curated content.
Again though, I agree that the asset store shouldn't be a garbage pit, and I understand why they have a quality barrier. I just want to know why my submission wasn't accepted. For all that I know right now, it could be because my icon image was wrongly formatted. I like you hippocoder. And I like your world-views (as shown in many of the General Discussion threads). But you really seem to be going out of your way to avoid talking about the purpose of this thread.

Well said. The last line of the first paragraph I quoted above (from the submission guidelines) implies that their feedback wouldn't just be a link to the submission guidelines, but you're right that I did get a form of feedback. Thanks for being understanding about how helpful useful feedback would be.

 

@IFL You started by saying "And not to hijack this thread, but..."

And replies meant not for you, you're taking as directed by you.

If you don't like the result of your submission to the asset store, email them. If they don't reply, email them again.

The guidelines have a lot of info. Get some introspection and figure out for yourself what may be the issue.

Perhaps you've already figured it out.

 

@sfbaystudios - Thanks for the clarification. Regardless of your intended recipient, surely you can see that you were a bit snarky. Also, it's kind of unfair to assume that I haven't already tried to figure out what the issue may be on my own... or to suggest introspection when I'm obviously just frustrated. I appreciate your intention with trying to help out though.

 

As I said before, if people clearly put no effort designing the asset and it's low quality in that sense alone, then I'd agree that it probably shouldn't be on the store.

The only thing I said is that it shouldn't be judged on "what" it is but rather the amount of work that went into it, the documentation, the support, the ease of use for customers, etc.

And I only brought that up because of the 'ball of mouths' that came up. Something like that may be 'odd', but someone could put a lot of effort making something like that. And I don't think it should be denied just because of what it is. If Unity said "well, it looks like it took hardly any time to make that", sure. But if they said something like what you said:

With the basis being "weird" and "I don't understand it", then I can't agree.

 

In my experience and from what I've seen of others, if your asset only has a few small issues then they will tell you exactly what the issue is so you can fix it right away (e.g. store image, broken references, licenses). Almost every time I see someone complain about a vague rejection, it's because the asset as a whole is of poor quality, and demonstrates the author isn't ready to be selling stuff to other users.

In the case of IFL's asset, I believe the issue is that the asset itself is just too obscure. No one is going to search for 'mouth ball', so the only way they'll find it is by searching for 'mouth' or 'ball', but it's hugely unlikely they would want this asset when searching for those terms, so it would just dilute the search, thus make them less money.

Another important thing to consider about art assets is that you can't mix and match them so easily, so even if your ball works great in some type of ball rolling game, the art style itself may not be compatible with anything else on the store. In this case, it would be much more valuable to create some type of ball pack that contains many balls of a consistent art style, and then you might even be able to sell it for a price.

 

Yes, bigger packages are far more valuable for everyone involved.

 

This.

 

I really appreciate your comments. Your objectiveness is just wonderful. I agree 100% that my ball of mouths is radically obscure, and I'm glad that you pointed that out. I think that the Asset Store team should say something about obscure content in the Submission Guidelines, or at least give useful feedback about obscure submissions. Right now, I don't know that my asset was rejected for being too obscure, but I think that's probably the case. At any rate, I think the Asset Store team should give a useful reason for every rejected first-submission. Telling me that I just didn't follow the guidelines, even though I fully complied with them, isn't helpful at all.

On the topic of conflicting art styles, that's not just an issue with obscure content. PBR helps unify content with varying styles, but there's still differences between even the most common styles. So as far as being conceptually obsecure, it's not going to fit in with most other assets, but art-wise, I think that's an issue that isn't restricted to obscure content.