Can someone help me understand how my asset is too simple?

Sorry for the complaint post, but I just waited 2 months for an asset I poured weeks of my time into be rejected by Unity for being too simple - when I see other pixel-art characters on the Asset Store that I would consider simpler than mine.

My asset has over 60 animations, which is an insane amount relative to what I see in other assets. Hell, the reason I made it with so many animations is because I got tired of looking for characters with a lot of animations. I wanted more than just the default idle, walk, run, jump, etc. so I just decided to make one myself with everything I would want.

It’s even got every animation you need to import it into Smack Studio (which is basically Smash Bros where you can make your own pixel art character). But I digress…

I just don’t get it - their rejection message tells me to research the market - I DID. I saw something nobody else was providing and decided it was an opportunity to provide it myself.

I’d like to also add that Unreal accepted the asset. If it’s not too simple for Unreal, then how in the world is it too simple for Unity? It seriously boggles my mind and I’m extremely frustrated.

Here is my asset that got rejected:
https://duckhive.itch.io/ducky

Please help me understand, as I see other assets like this (good assets, but simpler than mine IMO):
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/2d/characters/2d-pixel-sword-hero-2-161202
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/2d/characters/2d-pixel-punch-hero-97434
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/2d/characters/pixel-art-french-bulldog-white-245495
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/2d/characters/pixel-art-dinosaur-character-143562

The really frustrating part is not that they didn’t accept it - it’s that they straight up rejected it - so if I resubmit it, it’s got to start all the way over and I have to wait 2 more months. They could’ve asked me to make changes at least.

Idk man, I’ve actually been defending Unity lately, but after this I truly don’t know what the hell is going on with them. Guess everyone is right, maybe it’s time to jump ship.

 

I have an article for these "too simple" rejections: https://codesmile.de/2023/02/08/is-your-asset-too-simple/

I'm guessing this could have been a close call. Though there's some points, my thinking goes along these lines:

• It's just a single character. (which is okay in principle)
• The character looks a lot like Flappy Birds. (hmmm that raises some flags)
• It's also pretty small, I'm guessing 16x16 pixels. (which is okay but again, limiting its usefulness)
• This raises the question: Would it generally work for a 2d platformer, not just a Flappy Birds clone? (maybe, sort of, the animations support it, but there's definitely better characters imaginable)
• Is it a likable character of high quality? (not really, it's just an amorphous blob that's green-ish for whatever reason)

The main issue with character design is the eyes. They're very small, low contrast, hardly noticable. Compare this to the Flappy Bird character's eye (yup, singular). The design of eyes are critical to making a likable game character.

The undefined-ness or blobbiness of the character, and its unnaturally green-ish tint, also makes it less suitable to be useful for games. What kind of enemies go along with this? Probably hard to find something that matches the style.

The animations are nicely done for sure.

They practically accept anything. Otherwise it'd be devoid of assets.

Try searching for some popular keyword like "third person", sort by relevancy and compare the search results between both stores. You'll see where the music plays and where the crickets are chirping.

 

Thanks for your reply, but I honestly disagree with most of what you said. Not necessarily disagree, but just think most of what you said is subjective and a matter of opinion. But isn’t that the point of an art asset? Some will like it, some won’t.

It’s a single character - so what? You said yourself that’s acceptable.

Looks like flappy bird - well yea - it’s a duck. Birds look like other birds.

It is 16x16, but again so what? You can scale it to whatever size you want.

It absolutely would work for a platformer, a very advanced platformer at that, as it has 60 freakin animations. Flappy Bird? Are you kidding me? You think I’d make 60 animations for a Flappy Bird clone?

Is it likeable? That’s your opinion. Yea, it’s a blob, but guess who else is just a blob and one of the most loved characters of all time? Kirby. Jigglypuff is also just a blob, along with countless other “simple” characters.

And so what on the color? What color should he be in your opinion?

Maybe it has something to do with not offering different color variations. Maybe they want it shaded better and not a flat style. Maybe they want better eyes? What? But let’s say you have a point on some of those - why couldn’t they just request changes?? It makes no sense and is a double standard in my eyes based on the countless other simple characters on the Store.

And I’m aware the Unity Asset Store is more popular than the Unreal Marketplace, but I’d say give it time (especially since Unity has gotten REALLY good at pissing people off recently). Unreal was no cakewalk to get it listed either - they actually communicated with me and requested changes several times. They sent me an entire checklist of things they are looking for in assets that it needed to pass before they’d accept it. Point is, they communicated with me - they didn’t just brush me off and flat out decline it.

Again, I do appreciate your feedback, but I still fail to see how it was too simple. I’d honestly them just say “declined - we don’t like it” than to give me that “too simple” BS. Because them not liking it is the only thing I can think of. If so, that’s fine, I’ll move on to where people do like it. Good luck, Unity.

 

I think sometimes it just depends on the curator you get. Maybe add some type of customization like color schemes or some kind of scripted demo scene to make it 'less simple'.

Sorry to hear your asset was denied, looks like a useful asset to me.

 

Thank you - I’ve honestly been simmering over it. It’s nice to hear someone affirm that I’m not delusional on this. I try to be fair about my work, but I know when I’m getting screwed, and this is one of those times unfortunately.

The roadmap for the asset did include a character controller with most of the animations implemented. Basically an ultimate platforming kit. I just wanted to get it listed asap and didn’t think it’d be a problem and was completely blindsided by this.

It’s honestly a pretty big setback for me. This was an asset I had high hopes for on Unity’s store, being the vast amount of animations it offers that most others don’t come close to matching, and I was going to price it reasonable. So I thought it had potential to do well.

Guess I could still go the ultimate platforming kit route and just include Ducky as a bonus, but I don’t know. Just seems like there’s plenty of platforming kits out there already.

Another thought is a beat-‘em-up kit, as many of the animations are meant for that. (Still can’t get over the dude comparing it to a flappy bird clone)

Just not sure I even want to anymore. I’ve seen a dramatic dip in views on my existing assets since Unity completely pooped the bed, and I don’t think they’re coming back…. There will most certainly be a surge in Unreal’s marketplace as people are leaving for either Unreal or Godot (man I wish Godot had a dedicated marketplace). I’ve already got the animations imported on Unreal - I just have to create a character controller. I’m confident I can do this in Unreal and have it live in less time it’d take to do in Unity and wait for them to (maybe) approve it 2 months later. Plus, Unreal’s 88/12 split is much nicer than Unity’s.

Anyways, sorry for the rant. Thanks again for the reply. I’ve emailed them my appeal and am holding on to a sliver of hope they’ll change their minds, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

 

Don‘t let it drag you down. Like I said it could have been a close call. You can follow up on the rejection email and ask for specifics, others have done that and it was at least a pointer in the right direction. Since they mention researching the market … this brings me to: are there maybe enough of these?

If you find there‘s a ton of pixel art animated characters on the store the market may simply be saturated and/or the developer demand just isn‘t there yet. Be sure to check the metrics available on the store: number of ratings, number of reviews, number of „have favorited this asset“ and most crucially for current interest level: views past week (observed over a couple weeks).

If the latter is missing it means there were less than 10 views eg practically zero interest (= potential customers).

Be sure to also check the free assets market, and specifically OpenGameArt.org and itch.io. Also Kenney‘s assets. If they have something just like yours (and the more of them) chances are devs will tend to use the free versions rather than buy.

 

Thanks - this makes the most sense. After sleeping on it I've cooled off a bit. I think you're probably right - that there's already enough pixel-art characters. I still disagree with their decision, but it is what it is. I'm still contemplating my next move, but I'll turn these lemons into lemonade somehow.

Thanks again for your input, and sorry for any hostility and frustration. Yesterday was one of those days.

 

If you're in a hurry maybe just try adding a basic character controller, it shouldn't take you too long and adds objectively adds quite a bit of 'value'. Back and forth emails on specifics are a great idea but can take a long time.

Sometimes I find that just trying a 'fix' to the problem and re-submitting is the quickest solution. Don't forget that its only 1 to 3 business days on average (sometimes even 5-7 lately!) to get the asset reconsidered, you do not move to the very back of the queue.

I have even on one instance re-submitted the exact same asset without any changes and had it get accepted. Have also had another that was denied for 'Wrong Asset Category', then changed it got denied again for the same reason, then changed it back and it was accepted.

Don't let it get to you too much, denies happen frequently but it is usually quick to get them sorted.

 

Thanks!! That actually makes me feel so much better! I thought I’d get moved to the back of the queue and that was a major reason behind my frustration. I can whip up a controller pretty fast. I actually already have a basic one - I just need to expand upon it and improve it before submitting it.

Thanks again, if I can resubmit something and get a 1-3 day turnaround, I’ll be content. Sorry for not understanding that in the first place. I was under the impression that kind of turnaround was only for existing assets, or only if they requested changes. I thought declined meant it’d start all the way over