Greetings,
I’ve done a post that has gone largely unnoticed a while ago about what i think is missing from the asset store.
While some of those points are clearly only changeable by UT i think i could help on some others.
I wanted to gauge the interest in the following service provided on a dedicated website:
For sellers :
Design an asset format specification to which you can adhere, specifying both generic (for all assets) and asset type specific (for exemple a model asset spec, a engine extention spec etc etc), allowing for better user comfort as all asets that comform to the spec would “feel similar” deployment wise (this wouldn’t hinder creativity at all, it’s strictly organisational)
Be displayed on the website with the ability to link to your own to present your tool
Be able to show that you are working to support the common standard (you get to tick that checkbox)
Be able to show that you actually match the standard (i check that box after testing it)
For buyers
Be able to browse assets in another way (this doesn’t mean to replace the asset store which does this very well)
similar feature products (be able to immediately spot assets that would be redundant)
Your assets : enter the assets you own and tick a checkbox to hide all competing products, letting you browse for only new features
See for each product or in a comparison which products complies to the spec (which will both mean that it has nice compatibility with other spec complying products as well as it behaves more like you’d expect)
I’m not sure how much of a need there is for this, i know it would fit “my” need (i own around 120 paid assets and i definately wish i could import the whole mess into something coherent without fights, no multiple standard asset redundant folders, no multiple same free plugin import etc etc in a decent hierarchy).
Also for sellers only, if you are interested please also PM me if you would be interested (if this takes of) in participating and / or reviewing the spec.
Thanks
EDIT : just to be clear, the plan is for this to be free, i’m just gauging interest as i don’t want to waste my time on it if no one cares, what i mostly get out of this is the hope providers of my own assets will convert to it
As a consumer, I would be thrilled to have this as a resource! Sounds like a big project, so I understand why you are interested in getting feedback before spending the time to develop it.
What I want is perhaps a little different than what you are proposing. I am looking for a review site that hosts feature comparisons between similar solutions, technical data on art assets (poly count, texture size, etc.) and a place to provide reviews without using your real name which dampens truly critical feedback.
However, I may not be comfortable making a registered account detailing all the assets I own. I consider that private information and would be reluctant to share it with a site hosted by a third-party (other than UT).
The Asset Store is pretty well designed, but there is always room for improvement!
Comparison of similar assets is in scope, however it’s not a place for reviews, at least that’s not the original intent, so that would be a pretty straightforward technical comparison (basically feature checkboxes in a grid). It would help with scenarios like “i need a decent water solution, but i’d rather trade some quality for android support, but i’d rather have variable quality on it to bump it back on windows” sort of filtering.
Users won’t need an account, but you will be able to create one and add your assets if you want to, it’s just for added functionality of “find stuff i don’t own”, if you don’t want that, don’t fill your assets really :). Assets you own wouldn’t be public either, it’s just for your own filtering.
Edit: as i said it doesn’t mean to compete with the asset store, just to extend the community, so every product page would link to the asset store.
Yes that’s the plan, basically sellers would be able to apply (for free of course) to say “we follow the spec”, and all that follow the spec would already answer yes to a lot of those, so it would be easy to spot the others and see the note, the goal is really to make a “here, look at this list of behave as expected and work well with everything assets”.
I want assets where i can go from open unity to all imported with no mismatch no surprises.
I guess I could see the value of it. If everything was made to scale it would be great so particle systems simply worked you didnt have to resize the models (where one is way too big or too small).
I actually see where you’re coming from, as i took that side in another thread (about a pro only external forum), but there are things on which we “must” rely on unity (need staff involvement), others (like this) where we “should” rely on unity. I don’t think unity is willing to do this now but maybe if this went well they would be happy to take over by pushing that standard to all the assets on the store?
Also i agree about the random third party but really, i’m hoping for it to be a community effort, i definately do not have the foresight required to think of everything that should be standardized, but it would really be nice to get a group of people like you together and have them “agree” on a way to do things so that all assets play nice together
Yes that’s exactly what this would be, for exemple on an art asset you’d either see a sig saying “Confirmed plays nice” or something, to dictate that it follows the standard (to be defined, just exemples : for exemple 1 metter = 1 unit, 1 material per prefab etc etc) or failing that a grid indicating point by point where it matches and where it difers.
That’s not something i had in mind (as it would both require for me to purchase all assets, and as there could be conflict of interest as i’m planning 1 or 2 things i’d like to sell on the store, althought i guess i could just mark those as not reviewed due to conflict of interest or something).
My goal was more to unify the asset maker community around a set of rules, not to push my opinions on those assets through the website, so i was thinking of keeping the comparison strictly checkbox based factual as in “implements section X of our common spec yes/no”.
This would allow very easily to buy for exemple a pack of props and know that it is organised as expected, provides the expected formats, doesn’t import script X and Y that could exist in another package conflict etc etc. I think review wise the asset store review section is already pretty good no?
