A story of my crooked hands. (on Publisher portal)

I’ll right start from moral of the story - thoroughly check the submission guidelines before trying and present the product the best you can.

So i made a quite lowpoly glock model with lazy textures, inspired with couple of its models, first half of modelling was made without reference & looking, the only fully geometry identical part was the bracket of trigger (or how it is called, maybe the sights too, but i dont think cutted in half boxes is licensed).

Though the slider was square too, but not the same exactly, then i made a package without demoscene (cause in similar 2016 asset there wasn’t), rejected by that reason.

Than i made another couple one resubs, in between made a 9mm v. as a bonus (Original was 18mm, 9mm body looked even worse, only the slider part started to resemble glock (checked, the trigger bracket still too), made i guess good enough presentation (at least the demoscene part).

Glock protected design - rejected, removed the “glock” in any text, except 1 tag - same (maybe i could push through if removed even the tag and/or changed the bracket? Though the complaint after removing namings was only about “protected design” not brand name).

Then i completely changed the main form of everything, except trigger, because it was random enough already (didn’t even had the doubled design), and drop button (just a box), but started the package from scratch, just added the model and its separated slightly rotated on X magazine to empty scene with rotate Y script and orthographic camera. “Rejected: Submission unfit”.

That was a story of a simplified glock with only details, such as - body, drop button, slider, barrel, gas tube, hammer (though it too was a box not a complex part like original), mechanical sights, mag. There was no complex textures or details such as safety button, text markings etc.

P.S.
Maybe the main mistake was giving the “Glock” in name in the beginning, that now everyone think that i made so similar copy of glock that it is illegal.

Also i’d like to notice that the code checking team is more detailed (or their response templates?), i could get the “design is glock” part with the demoscene remark, but every time i got only one what’s wrong. (fault of the moral above, anyways)

Q.
Out of that all i have a little question, rules became stricter on similarity to protected design? Because i found 2019 asset that literally gives you a full copy with 4k textures of .40 Glock and a “Glock” brand name that is protected in its text description and a bunch of other guns, that probably too.
Or both this asset (because there is only one by “glock” free price search") and the no demoscene one is just a random exclusion? (nvm, the one without was from 2016, there was no tag system in both, btw)

Also here’s the only screenshot that i appended in last try (the video you can imagine was almost the same, just with rotation and side view, also there is less reflections than in it, cause i was lazy to retake final version with fixed meshes for front face render, cause it looked almost the same from this angle)


Overall, i think after the better quality one and many resubs, but design protected, the review team was like after seeing this: “You mad, bro? I’m tired explaining, just unfit.”

Here’s video frame of the “protected design” one:


(the button is same as above, btw, only pos changed & roughness in setting)

Ah, nevermind, there are 2024 paid assets that use glock in tag and doing almost same copy not in low-poly style.
I guess its just a way to say “Okay, still not good enough, especially considering its a free asset and we can’t pay any fee from it in case, make it at least less copyrighted”.

Or the review team just started on an autopilot declining when seeing any “glock” even in tag, after i said “glock” in name and “there are no glock company signs” in description.

In total the last verdict for myself, nah, there’s no sense in doing anything to public anywhere, anyways the free asset will be downloaded like 3 times, especially after removing any abilitiy to find it by “glock” in search.

Small technical remark, they were in .GLB format, but with dependency set on official GLTFast.

Extra dumb Q. (Solved, yes it is about Unity file cause there is “package content” point in store assets)
“We don’t feel this package is a good fit for the store. We have chosen not to publish this asset.”
I still had a little more plural tags than similar one model assets (even they have some), does the “package” means “unity package file” here or that i put only one model while using plurals in tags? Cause in some assets people use not “pack” but “package” meaning a set of models etc.

You repeatedly say you were lazy with both the design and submission process and you wonder why you got “submission unfit?”

well the 18mm version was good enough comparing to other lowpoly assets in asset store (though maybe i still didn’t do enough in presentation, images had grey backs, but got the “protected design” thing only that time)

To be honest if the problem was the model quality i would like the “Unfit” on the first attempt, then i would’nt spent time on trying to make it totally not copyrighted in silhouettes

on the “unfit” one i dont wonder, btw, that’s totally deserved one time.
I wonder about where is the line in guidelines part “similar design”, when there are lots of assets that do this, even today, even with glock.

Maybe its okay when its awesome or huge low poly pack and also paid? I dunno, but guess that is the reason why there is only one free glock, with such huge popularity of it.
Or the case was .GLB format in the end? I dunno i set a dependency to GLTFast so it shouldn’t

Though i know photoshop and premiere and could spent this 2h+ on a post to do a candy presentation, even of a simple model, lol.

(Though the first 18mm result took 10.8h to model, texturing 12.5h,
the making of different versions is not related to quality, even otherwise i guess, cause they’re worse, guess should’ve made the real low-poly deal of 600 verts not 1300 tris and spent overtime of tryharding & texturing, on presenting, maybe making an actual free pack)

It’s not a simple model, it’s a bad model.

okay then what about this one, if it is, i can find you more recent one if you want, there is similar quality assets:

(anyways i did not do enough screens and images, so even with perfect model mine wont go public and if we are talking about the decopyrighted one, yeah, i dont like it too,)

(P.S
There also was mistakes in my origins (those are pivots in unity) of everything under the parent and child scales wasn’t applied, render faces was both, instead of front before the ugly last version was made)

While plain, the material use is much better than yours, as well as the overall model fidelity.

dunno about fidelity, cause the silencer is not hollow (for example) and i was doing a low-poly sub from the beginning with it in name, though materials i agree are more standartized, won’t argue in all aspects, with my latest version which even lacks normal map on the slider.

off topic:
Anyways you know im such a dumb and an empty talker, that bought a g102 lightsync mouse and thought it is fake, because the bottom glows through (which should’nt i heard?). Just update of logitech hub needed, though overall quality except the wheel feels worse, comparing to my prodigy one.

here’s the video btw, that is showing my level of mistake, though i began like an intermediate in here on 2:38, i did completely wrong after, cycled on making as low tris as possible and then in the end still used a reference. And did awful texturing approach comparing to what’s happening here, though manual one.

it is quite dumb, but, personally, I found the answer, comparing to the convex hulled silencer of ak-74, indeed, I guess my one could be sold for 1$ (Well, at least after return of normal map and very simple fixes) and EULA and Asset Store don’t like any Creative Commons stuff, Unlicense license too.

That is the Ultimate answer why bunch of paid glocks and none free (only like one):

I think all Unity store assets need to follow the Standard Unity Asset Store EULA. This doesn’t stop you from publishing it for free, it’s more about Unity avoiding legal issues.

It looks like fab supports creative commons, so you might want to look at posting there instead.

Nope, fab is only if you fill up the credit crap, which is broke in my case

(Yes, you have to do that, even if making free stuff, idiotic! Unreal!)

Oh-o, my point valids sometimes.
@Murgilod
Don’t know if you see this, but it seems I can make an accepted one (though it is not perfect, but not worst), though it is still sad that the original model one was ditched, just because of my deleted further line “no glock logos” and the feel of the reviewers that it is still an unlicensed copy of a real glock.

|
Anyways, now I know that there is not much sense making “Free” models for Unity, as it doesn’t like any CC’s (so those could be used anywhere else without a problem and credit)

Upd.
Also I made the ultimate “chair” (fine, walls at least) spamming addon for the beloved Blender.

So, I just tried to upload the most low-poly asset, and it seems because Store likes only correct and only .fbx files (which is hell in Blender, though fixable, but spending time messing with .fbx, isn’t fun, the .glb one is okay).

“Content Quality and Presentation.”, most likely the requirements on 3D models are much higher, as i didn’t see any the same badness or tryhard low-poly as mine, at least in the page presentation or the quantity is a pack, than the code, because if we exclude time to create documentation. the code one is much less effort actually…

So next time, if i do the most low-poly idiotism, i’ll try to make a pack, and not mess up the .fbx with -90 rotation in export (there is experimental func in Blender to export it without that).
(maybe one complex and correct topology one? but that be much more sad if i still mess up the page and spend tens of hours for nothing)

P.S. (whine time)
Once again replying to my first topic ever, lol.
Also i have a feel, that the model reviewers are actually modelers/designers or something (because they do get mad if something wrong), when the code ones are regulars or juniors at max?
But mostly that is just the rules of the model ones, as I read, and, yeah, the .fbx one definetely ruined the rule of 0 0 0 without crutch new parent, but the damn Blender saying that the experimental function can ruin stuff so i didn’t used that bool, well even so, i should’ve duplicated and just flipped the model before .fbx export to make it work correctly.

(anyways there is no sense making single low-poly model, without a pack even if it’s free, maybe i should’ve tried the legendary boot as there is none free, as a pair at least (literally one single free boot, pretty heavy in tris), even if it violates quality, that would be definitely “a good fit”, as it would fill the gap in free price and overall it is more flexible to low-poly style, than a handgun.
(extra: no it was a different one, not the one from this topic)

If some madman read this, do people rig guns or just making the origin points, right parenting is enough?