Someone took the assets and literally packaged it as a game with no changes. Will there be any intervention to be done by steam / unity / the asset developer? Should there be? Someone spent $50, opened the package, hit build, paid $100 to steam, uploaded ‘game’. It might be left up to just the community, as other people noticed it’s a game template / kit, but some people are merely considering it an unturned knockoff. It’s much worse than that.
What would you do if someone purchased a starter kit of yours for $30+ and then sold it on steam for a profit?
Actually by the comments on the steam page the asset store developer is making a pretty sum off the number of times this game has been uploaded to steam. Not likely he/she is going to turn down the sales anytime soon.
It looks like some of the pictures on Steam are identical to the pictures from the asset store. People should be allowed to use assets that they purchased, but people should at least take some new screenshots when they post it on Steam Greenlight. For their own sake, they should take new screenshots instead of copying screenshots directly from the asset store.
Speaking of which, I wonder regarding the licensing. The asset licensing covers the assets paid for and downloaded through the asset store. However, the licensing probably does not cover the screenshots and/or video from the asset store that are not included within the asset itself. So by using those screenshots, it is actually possible the person violated licensing even if the person bought the asset through the store.
Yeah, but as noted by a ton of other threads here, gamers aren’t really behaving in a way to influence steam to reimplement quality controls. And digital distribution platforms are nothing if not mercenary. As long a there is some profit in a sale model, they will go for it.
Totally different. This person brought an asset off the store. They are selling a game. Selling the asset as part of a game is specifically allowed in the asset store licence agreement.
While it might be unethical, technically speaking selling a game built of a single asset with no modifications is allowed under the license terms.
It’s not being sold as source. It’s completely different. If it was being sold as a Unity package for other developers that would violate the license. This does not. In fact, as has been said, this is precisely what game kits are for.
They probably do, but that in and of itself doesn’t necessarily stop other people using it. The developer also owns the code and art assets, but people are pretty clearly allowed to reuse those.
The screenshots are the main legal snag I see in this case. The screenshots used to promote an asset are most likely not considered as licensed as part of the asset, unless the screenshots are included within the asset. By copying the screenshots directly from the asset store, the person that posted the game on Steam Greenlight is probably violating the copyright regarding the screenshots.
Technically speaking, the game poster is not calling the game “UnitZ”, which was the name of the Unity Asset Store item. The video contains images of the asset store name, since the game poster did not change that content. But that name “UnitZ” within the images/video are probably covered in the asset store license, since the image was part of the asset. The game poster called the game “FieldZ” on Steam, even though it says “UnitZ” in the video on Steam.
I don’t think there is a legal issue with the name. I do think there is a legal issue with the screenshots, though.
Totally agree there. But this is something that would have to be taken up by the developer. The asset store and steam should not get involved, except to honour requests to take the video down.
It might actually be possible the game developer in this case hasn’t yet purchased the assets, and is just using the video. That’s pretty sketchy there.
That’s what Atari had in mind before releasing a prototype of a PacMan port to their console.
At some point of time, sale model fails…and it fails hard.
That’s what happened to the Game Industry when E.T. came out. It failed in terms of quality control. Consumers stopped buying games and many game companies fail.
It’d be interesting for unity / steam to pull that trash from greenlight citing the screenshot as a reason.
I feel like it’d be a little different now with gameplay videos being so easily available.
But seriously… same name… same screenshots… they’re using the advertisement of the product to resell the compiled product haha. What kind of thinking process leads to that as being a good idea?
They shouldn’t be uploading the project as is But that’s what happens and I bet you one time it will grreenlight. When stream becomes an open platform you
L see a hundred versions of this game uploaded a month.
Actually, not really what happened, that is the myth version. ET was actually a very impressive game in terms of development. It also made a ass ton of money, a top selling game. The problem was over confidence in sales growth. Atari was producing more than was going to sell (not just ET, everything), and basically bleeding cash. ET wasn’t the problem, it was a casualty of all things that lead to the Atari problems.
The real story of ET/Atari is way more fascinating than myth. I would encourage anyone in or interested in game development to read up on Atari. There are also a couple of great documentaries out there.
