Store package declined with no reason

Community Showcases
1

Hi!

A friend and I made an assetpack for the Assetstore, but got declined.
The Email said “We’ve reviewed the submission and consistent with the criteria considered in our approval process, we have chosen not to publish this asset.”
It didn’t give any further explanation as to why it was declined which makes it impossible for us to go back and fix things. Is it normal that they don’t give a reason?
I wrote an Email to support a week ago but didn’t get any answer.

We think the pack is quite high quality and we put a lot of work into it, so it would be a shame to not be able to release it.

Here are some screenshots:

2449837--168208--805cfb8b-82a5-4c3a-b53f-b00fda674fbe_orig.jpg
2449837--168208--805cfb8b-82a5-4c3a-b53f-b00fda674fbe_orig.jpg1124×613 132 KB

2449837--168209--4b73e6b5-caad-4bf3-bcb3-93c34a99f7ce_orig.jpg
2449837--168209--4b73e6b5-caad-4bf3-bcb3-93c34a99f7ce_orig.jpg1131×619 60.3 KB

2449837--168210--ce06bac7-01a2-466f-8e56-9993cde9b0f9_orig.jpg
2449837--168210--ce06bac7-01a2-466f-8e56-9993cde9b0f9_orig.jpg1131×619 50.9 KB

2

Are you looking for feedback on things that could be improved with the pack?

The pack looks alright from the images provided, not excellent, but also not terrible.
Here are a couple things that could help.

  • It doesn’t look like the models are setup for PBR lighting. Maybe they are - if so - use a better scene to display them so the textures look great rather than only mediocre.

  • Looks like some of the modeling could be improved based on the second screen shot, the top piece looks like a separate mesh object. Maybe this is just a trick of the eye with the angle and resolution of the image, but it looks like there are two mesh pieces in the render, with planar facing polygons.

  • Several other factors could also be the reason for the decline. What is the resolution of the textures? How is the poly count - can you show some wireframe renders? Did you follow the submission guidelines exactly?
    If these models are photo scanned models, maybe the mesh just needs to be cleaned up a bit more and the triangle count reduced.

Don’t fret - several asset publishers have had numerous declines with little feedback - only to revise and resubmit with success. Look at the art objectively and see how it could be improved - and do it.
And Important - make sure the submission guidelines are followed to the letter.

1 Like
3

Hi!

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was looking for common reason of why these packs get declined or maybe someone from Unity giving some more specific feedback.
It feels a bit weird to me that they don’t even give the smallest hint as to what is the problem. As it is now, it could be anything from just wrongly setup folder names to too high tricount or texturesize or whatever.
It is very very hard if not impossible to go back and revise the package with nothing to go on. If this is standard practice, it seems like it should be changed from unity. A simple list of bulletpoints from whoever reviewed the package would help immensly and would, I could imagine, not be a lot of work.

I am quite sure we followed all the submission guidelines.

1 Like
4

That’s a hard one. The asset store has been around for a few years so I think that the people in charge of it feel that they don’t need any new assets unless those assets provide significant value to the ecosystem. Do your assets fully satisfy the nitche that they are in? If someone was looking to outfit their graveyard scene then would they be able to do it with your asset pack, or would they have to combine it with another pack that may have been produced with a different style?

A good asset provides the purchaser with everything they need to solve a problem.

1 Like