When you are looking for art asset packs, do you want asset packs that are just high quality art assets or do you want a pack that has art assets plus code examples?
Just art or art plus code?
I think having this info would help people creating assets understand what Unity developers need to make the most of their assets.
Beginners would probably appreciate assets with code while people who have already made their own code library probably wouldn’t want to pay extra for the code.
Supplying the code increases the support required from you. If you publish something like a car, you’re going to get a million questions like How do I make it go faster or roll easier - unless it’s code that does everything, in which case that should be sold seperately so that it works on any car.
Why not both? I see no reason there couldn’t be a ‘project’ version and an ‘art’ version on different sections of a store.
I’m a dev, so when I look for assets, I prefer ones without code. The code on the asset store written by artists is uh… well… just say no. 
It’s like having a dev do art – just don’t do it.
I’m a dev also. But if your asset needs code, i prefer it ship with code so that I see how it is done, and can modify it if needed. I hate when I get an asset, and they don’t ship the demo and the code.
If it needs code, ship it with code. The typical examples I see are triggers for chest/door animations or an example control script for animated characters.
Thanks for the responses so far guys.
I lean towards the “just art, no code” side when I make assets. I assumed that the people buying art asset packs were programmers that wouldn’t get much benefit from any code I wrote.
I will probably start adding some basic examples with code to future asset packs. Just examples to help make the use of the assets clearer.