Is it bad practice to make packages for re-useable art assets, or is it okay?

Unity Engine
1

Hi Guys,

TL;DR: Pretty much the title

Longer winded version

Looking for best practice here. I see there’s many ways to share assets between projects now:

  • NPM Scoped Registry Packages
  • Git sub-repositories
  • unitypackage files
  • Symlink files in a local network

We’re using npm packages for everything and it’s working brilliantly, so far. We’re looking into sharing asset packs containing artwork for entire environments (buildings, props, prefabs, etc). Before we were just sharing editor tools or code. Are there pitfalls to using npm packages for this as well? Or is there a best practice to use something else instead? I notice Unity tend to have packages for editor tools rather than sharing assets. They normally tend to leverage their Asset Store for assets instead. Is it bad practice to use NPM Packages for shared assets, or is it okay?

2

It’s not bad practice to use UPM packages for your use case, i.e. sharing re-usable art assets. The only “pitfall” we can see is that UPM cannot currently be distributed in the Asset Store. It’s planned for the future, with no ETA to advise at present.

1 Like
3

Perfect answer. We only use them for private in-house shared packages. Thanks