Customers can download older versions of Unity itself, but not older versions of products bought on the Asset Store.
Although this post was inspired by the thread Is this legal - Assetstore issues again that was started today, just yesterday someone posted in a different thread that they were stuck because they needed access to an older version of PlayMaker to maintain compatibility with a different product.
If you feel this idea is worthwhile, please consider giving it some votes.
People already ask for support for older versions. I frequently get support requests for older versions of my assets. Usually I can just point them to the latest version on the Asset Store, but once devs get to a certain point in a project, they usually lock down versions.
As a customer I would only expect the current build to be supported.
As an asset provider (in the future) I’d support the current and second to last build.
This does raise a good question though - shouldn’t providers have archived packs themselves - releving Unity of this issue? I voted for the suggestion but think providers could just as easily support there customers by keeping older versions of there packages themselves, offline from the Unity asset store.
Something to keep in mind: in the case of the thread you linked to regarding a pack of models, it would be important to only allow customers to access versions at or higher than the one they purchased. Otherwise, let’s say you broke a pack in half to sell separately, then whoever bought one of the new packs at a cheaper price could access the other pack as well.
Also while I support this idea for practical reasons, I find it a bit strange that a company selling any kind of software product should maintain downloadability for the rest of eternity. I can’t find any basis for it in logical terms - I mean you can’t buy a TV from somewhere and then just pick it up next year or the year after. Keeping a digital product available does have a non-zero cost. And besides, once you download something, you do own a ‘physical’ version of it, and it makes sense that you would be responsible for preventing damage to it and not losing it.
I think Unity have nothing to lose though by maintaining versions, and so I support the idea.
Then every asset provider has to be able to distribute those things reasonably securely themselves, which is half of the point of the Asset Store. (The other half is giving us a centralised place to look for these things.) Unity already has infrastructure to do that, and while I don’t imagine that it’s trivial I also don’t think that adding an option to access older versions should be that big a deal.
Regarding support for those older versions, that support is being given in the form of the newer updated versions. As a customer I surely wouldn’t expect someone to make changes to the specific version of something I’m using just for me in the name of everyday customer support. I update to the current version where support is done for everyone, or if possible I contract them specifically to make a variation per my needs (I’d expect that to be a paid service, because it won’t generally improve their product or help their other customers).
Yes, but there’s massive savings elsewhere, so I don’t think a cost argument is reasonable. Especially since it doesn’t have to be “forever”, just something longer than the reasonably expected lifetime of the product.
Also remember that while you get a “physical copy” when the bit pattern is duplicated onto local storage, you don’t actually “own” that copy the same way that you “own” a physical object you buy. You’re buying a license, the right to use that data in some way. And I think it’s perfectly fair enough that as a part of that transaction consumers expect vendors to take simple steps on their end to provide you convenient access to the thing you licensed from them, as a part of good customer service if nothing else.
Also also, sure, I could make sure to meticulously download and back up exactly one copy (since licenses often stipulate that) of every digital item I buy from anywhere, but other stores won’t make me do that, and if I have to choose I’ll choose someone who provides better service. So if a store wants to keep its customers they’ll probably want to provide at least the level of service that other similar stores do.
Already put my last 4 votes into this ticket! Although, looking at where my votes are, I don’t have much hope…
Asset Store should archive all previous versions of assets forever (2015) - 251 votes
Label Rich Text includes inline Hyperlink (2014) - 709 votes
Graphics Decal System (2009) - 2288 votes and “Under Review”
So if it takes longer than 8 years for a popularly-requested issue to make it even be reviewed, maybe my kids will benefit from Asset Store versioning, at least…
Different teams at Unity work on different things. This is now the top idea in the Asset Store category, so hopefully the Asset Store team will take notice and have an incentive to implement it.
BTW, for me the important part of this idea isn’t to require Unity to keep assets available until the heat death of the universe, but rather to give customers the ability to download older versions of assets. This is particularly important when using more than one asset from the store, as some assets may only be compatible with older versions of other assets.
As a publisher I also frequently get support requests from customers who are far enough on their projects that they’ve locked down the versions of other assets that they’re using. It would improve my ability to provide support if I could download the same version they’re using.
If I take my assets off the store, or change them; I do so for my own reasons. I therefore do not want people to have historic access to older versions or versions with content that I have removed for the above mentioned my own reasons.
What reason would there be for changing an asset in such a way (or removing it) so as to no longer give something to a customer who paid for it?
I get not wanting to be responsible for distribution to new customers. Like let’s say I make a terrain generation package and after a time I realize that the thing is full of bugs, and I should pull it from the store, rebuild it from scratch, and sell Schneider’s Terrain 2.0 instead. That’s all well-and-good for future customers, but why should customers who paid for v. 1.0 no longer have access to that asset if they want it? If it’s marked as deprecated and unsupported, okay, but… if you paid for something, what valid reason is there for taking it away from you?
In cases where there’s DMCA issues or whatnot, I think that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Where Unity would remove the archived version, but only with the replacement of a valid package that meets the specs of what was sold. Failing to provide that should entitle customers to a refund.
In your example - you do not have ‘choice’ as a publisher on if your asset is available to existing customers. Deprecated assets are still available to customers who purchased the content.
I think that vendors should be able to deliberately remove stuff, because as you say there’s plenty of valid reasons for that. (Some of those reasons in my opinion should potentially lead to sales being refunded, but that’s a separate issue.) By default, though, one version of a thing shouldn’t disappear just because a new version of that thing came out - for all the same reasons that you can download prior version of Unity itself.
@Ryiah TextMesh Pro is one of those assets that’s sat in my wishlist for ages. I know it’s one of those essential plugins that people use constantly, but I haven’t found a situation where I could directly justify using it yet. Then again, that might be because my games usually get abandoned before they get to the point where polish and quality are needed…
