Our package “SplatBridge — Gaussian Splatting Importer & Streaming (SOG/SPZ/PLY)”
was declined with the template reason “Content Quality and Presentation”
(Section 2), with no specifics, and our reply asking for details got no answer.
Before resubmitting we reworked the whole first-run experience:
Installs into a single visible folder, Assets/SplatBridge (previously it
installed as an embedded UPM package under Packages/, which left Assets/
almost empty after import — our best guess at the decline reason).
A Getting Started window opens once after import: one-click demo scene,
one-click URP/HDRP setup check & fix, quick start + offline manual.
The bundled demo scene (a real photogrammetry scan, CC BY 4.0 credited)
renders with zero setup in edit and play mode on Built-in, URP and HDRP.
Asset Store Tools validator: only 3 warnings remain, all explainable
(untagged shaders by design for multi-RP support, static-variable listing
with domain-reload-safe re-arming, a Fody marker class inside a bundled
MIT-licensed DLL).
If anyone (especially anyone from the store team) can point at what typically
triggers this decline — package structure, docs, demo, or the listing page
(images/description) — we would be grateful. Happy to share screenshots of
the import experience and the listing draft.
I think this means that you have an unrefined description, sub-par key images, and I’ve read the name of your asset twice and still don’t really know what it does or why I would buy it. The bar for being approved for the asset store is very high, you can’t just slap any old thing together because you found it useful in a project.
There are 100s of thousands of other assets in the store and most of them get abandoned once it becomes obvious to the developer how much work they would have to do for every $10 of revenue. If your initial presentation is not grade A then you can save a lot of time if someone tells you to go away before you waste too much of your time. BTW, the amount that most asset store devs make per hour from their assets is below minimum wage.
Sorry if that sounds harsh. It’s not personal, that’s just what that reason typically means.
Thanks — harsh is fine, this is the most concrete signal we’ve had since the
decline text itself gave no specifics. Your read matches our blind spot: we
reworked the package side (first-run window, zero-setup demo, offline docs)
but never touched the store page itself.
One question, if you have 30 more seconds of patience: here is our one-line
pitch — “Import Gaussian Splatting scans (SOG/SPZ/PLY) into Unity and stream
multi-million-splat scenes on desktop and VR, with LOD and a baked cache.”
Does that land, or is it still unclear what it is and who it’s for?
We know the economics are grim — this exists because we needed it ourselves.
We’d just like the listing to stop failing the product.
i’ve had package rejected for store images also few years ago,
they were straight screenshots from editor (and had parts of editor displayed in those..)
made them them slightly cleaner and added asset name texts to it.. and got accepted.
Thank you both — genuinely. This thread gave us more actionable feedback in
two replies than the review process did in two submissions.
Your screenshot story is especially reassuring: our gallery is currently one
raw editor screenshot (chrome and all) plus two untouched renders, which
sounds like exactly what you got declined for. We’re redoing the set now —
cleaned-up shots with the asset name and a short feature line on each, plus a
proper opening line in the description that explains what Gaussian Splatting
is before diving into formats and features.
And thanks for confirming the pitch line reads clearly — that was the part we
couldn’t judge from inside.
We’ll report back here once it’s resubmitted, in case the outcome is useful
to anyone else who lands on this thread with the same decline text.
If this refers to “Section 2” of the publisher guidelines, review those guidelines closely. Perhaps whatever you have inside SplatBridge does not follow standard folder structure and naming schemes - those are not mandatory but if yours completely deviate from what’s commonly used, that could get the asset rejected. But could be anything else in that section 2.
Does it open again when the user closes the window, closes the editor, and re-opens the project? If so, it has to have a “don’t show this again” checkbox.
Do that please, that would help judge what might be an issue.
Closing the loop: SplatBridge was accepted on September 2 and is now live.
What I changed after this thread:
Rewrote the description to lead with what you get (bring photoreal scans of real places into Unity, stream them, add collision and VR) instead of a format list. @DustinDigital was right that the listing was the problem.
Replaced every raw editor screenshot with clean in-game renders, as @mgear suggested.
The Getting Started window auto-opens once per project and then only from the Window menu, so @CodeSmile’s nagging-window concern is covered. Everything installs under a single Assets/SplatBridge folder.
Two habits I picked up along the way: bump the version and fill in “Version Changes” on every resubmission (a same-version resubmit with an empty changelog got declined as “unmodified”), and test the import on the newest Unity 6000.x, since 6000.5 turned some obsolete-API warnings into hard errors.
Thank you all. This thread was more concrete than the review emails, and it is why the next submission went through.
