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.