Can someone please give me some feedback on why this tool is not good enough?

I have submitted a package so many times to the store now and I would like some input on what's wrong with it, since I don't get any good information from the asset store team. The only thing they answered lately is:

"Unfortunately we don't feel this submission is quite up to quality standards we hold on the Asset Store. As such, we have chosen not to publish this asset. However, we greatly appreciate the time and effort spent in preparing your submission."

The tool is very similar to:

https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/49673

and here's a very short clip of how to use it:

The asking price is 4.99$. What am I missing?

 

Hmm
One thing I think could improve this is if there was subtle fade in/out or instant settings to adjust. The see through changes pretty instantly.
But in the other asset - it also changes instantly.
Also maybe linking a material slot slider to change the color of objects would be nice. Can the color/opacity be adjusted by the user without having to muck with the code?

How does it do with multiple objects stacked on top of each other when the character goes behind?

 

I didn't expect such a detailed reply, thanks a lot!
The idea about changing the transparency over time is a really good one, I will implement that for sure with an option to set the time. I really like your second idea too which I will have to include as well . Currently they can just alter the opacity and color of the new material so no coding is needed, but it would be more handy to have it linked to the gameobject on a script.
It does support multi-transparency, I just forgot to upload a picture of it, sorry about that.

I really appreciate you taking your time to help me out, you've been very helpful.

 

Actually looks quite a nice too, especially at $4.99, I imagine it would work with 3rd person driving games too? So if the car went behind a rock the rock would become invisible?

 

Yep, it works for any 3rd person camera system. Hopefully the additions theANMATOR2b mentioned will be enough .

 

From what I understand they reject assets not only on the quality of the asset but also the quality of the support you provide.

Did you include documentation and link to support site?

Unfortunately, they do not seem to have a policy that code must be commented, I downloaded too many assets that dont have well documented code.

 

I included documentation but maybe my laughable website is the problem then? Beware:

http://ephemeral-studios.wix.com/homepage

Unfortunately I haven't learned any html coding yet, but I do have my own domain so I will get one up today. Thanks for the replies guys.

 

i have seen other sellers just linking back to a thread on the unity forums as their support site.
Do they still accept that as suitable support?

 

I'm interested in knowing this too. I'm not a good web designer so my new website looks far from good, but at least it's not on a free server and it's better than the last one . Way too early in development of my game to worry about getting a good looking sight so this'll do.

http://ephemeral-studios.com/

 

There's also the fact that they would not want a dozen assets doing the exact same thing. If it does the exact same thing as another asset, it's likely to get rejected.

It needs to stand out and be different from existing assets to be accepted. That could be different mechanics, better performance, more features, anything of the sort - but it should be different.

Pricing is entirely subjective; by numerical quantity alone, the top selling assets are almost all over $50 iirc. Just being cheaper is not enough to stand out. I would venture to say you're likely to be better off adding more features and selling it for more money (say, $10, for example).

That being said, I do not have anything being sold on the asset store, so I'm not an expert.

 

I suspect the similarity to the existing asset is the real reason, but if that's the case they REALLY need to get more templates for different reasons in their replies! Just saying "quality" is at least very vague, perhaps even plain wrong.

 

That's true, my tool is very similar to the one I linked, but it's 4 times cheaper and competition is good for everyone, and as far as I could tell there is no other tool with the same approach of solution. My tool did have a few extra features but maybe that wasn't enough, it should be now though thanks to the great recommendations from theANMATOR2b.

The reason I created this tool in the first place was because I saw that there was only one of it on the store and I thought the price was too high.

I've been thinking about adding some kind of 3rd person camera system, but there are a lot more of those on the store than there are see-through solutions. Dunno what else would fit with my tool.

Thanks for chipping in.

 

Yeah, that would save time for everyone and it wouldn't mean more work for them. Hopefully someone on the asset store teams reads that.

 

Make the differences clearer, unique features up front, resubmit. It might be worth it.

 

I will give it a shot once I have updated the documentation tomorrow. Thanks.

 

Yep! And I would agree in most cases, however in the digital world, competition is slightly different. In the vein of competition for real-world goods, there's a lot of costs associated with production, so competition has many areas to compete in. In the digital world, products are "free" to produce, in a sense of duplication - once it's done, it's done. It also is not restricted by room... Which means it can keep being duplicated, indefinitely.

In a city, there's limited zoning areas to place restaurants, stores, and they have to keep producing and selling goods; they don't sell, they go out of business and get replaced. In the digital world, if it doesn't sell, it stays in the store.. Cluttering it up. There's no zoning, no restrictions. It turns into the Android play store. Millions of apps, and the ones that float to the top are the ones with the biggest marketing budget only.

I think Unity's intent is to artificially restrict & zone the store out, so the repetition is kept to a minimum, while quality is kept as high as it can be (they did not used to be this restrictive, but quality has become very important to them lately). This means any buyers can be more assured that the store is worth visiting and browsing. Having two similar assets would be like a Walmart having two infinitely filled shelves that have almost the same product; why have two of those shelves? If the two shelves are at different prices, why would anyone visit the other?

Sorry for the long explanation... I think what you have is cool, I just wanted to explain, to the best of my knowledge, why Unity is doing it this way! Their templates certainly could be improved, though. Once I understood why, I appreciated it more, especially as a consumer.