Does the asset store really review

Do they actually review assets during that review period or just run a virus scan then publish. Because I am constantly seeing the following submission rules violated:

1.2.c No aspect of a package will be allowed to promote or redirect users to other marketplaces or digital stores.

See promotion to go to their personal digital stores all the time.

1.4.a If you are an Online Service, such as a monetization service, ad-network, back-end hosting service, analytics system or other service where a variable amount of money changes hands after the user downloads your SDK or plugin, you may not upload your SDK or plugin. Services must register as an Asset Store Service in order to distribute on the Unity Asset Store. Services can register by contacting Macy Mills. Service submissions that include non-proprietary content will be rejected unless non-proprietary content is a registered Asset Store Service or is under an open-source license that we support.

See back end upgrade update and subscription models from time to time.

1.7.b Submissions that require a user to register, sign up or pay extra costs for a package to fully function will be rejected.

Most certainly must register on their website to use some assets at all (at least 1 I know of anyway)

1.7.c Packages that include watermarks or otherwise obstruct the use of the product will be rejected.

I see this from time to time.

1.7.e Submissions that have any artificial limits implemented on functionality or usability will be rejected.

Hello...the ones with ccu limits, those are artificial limitations imposed on assets.

Also the one about standard assets folder is violated a lot as well, that one more than most, but that one I don't consider all that big of a deal, the above are huge deals,there is one asset in particular that violates ALL of the above.

 

I think sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. I do believe they are undermanned.

I submitted a model once which I was careful to ensure it followed all the guidelines, and they rejected it after a few weeks saying there was already enough stuff like that on the store already. Ok, fine.

But then I look at similar products on the store, and some of it clearly doesn't conform to the rules, a lot of it is straight hot garbage, and I know I've bought a few assets in the past that were clearly not game ready.

So it probably depends on who's working that day, how busy they are, when's the last time they got laid, and so on.

 

LOL, well I could see one violation slipping through occassionally but when I found an asset that violates 5+ of the guidelines in a very clear way ... that is just wrong.

Glad I got it for 70% off so it was 70% less of a waste of money.

 

Eventually Unity's own AI department will be handling all of these shenanigans.

 

LMAO hippo, not sure I trust them developing AI to handle it, considering their history with asset store coding, don't really expect them to be able to handle AI development for it, when they can't even seem to do it with a human brain at the moment.

 

This is ultimately the problem with human curated markets. Unless you put a massive amount of humans on it, and constantly train those humans, the review process becomes very inconsistent.

Who are you and what did you do with Arowx?

Automated checking, at least on the first pass, would certainly be useful. At the very least, they could verify the folder structure complies, and do a basic analysis of the quality.

 

I've had models rejected for non-technical reasons (even though they were already on the store in a larger collection by the way), and I've had a script rejected for non-inclusion of a demo scene. So they do review them. I do not think they execute a test plan for each submission that covers all of the asset store rules.

Of course they are understaffed, or it wouldn't take weeks for a submission to go through review.

 

That's good to hear. For me, anyway. I thought maybe they rejected me because the reviewers are on the forums and they don't like me, but who wouldn't like Joe-Censored?

 

At this point I was snorting and laughing at the same time.

 

Look another one, plastered as the first slide in the slideshow at the top of the asset store. Agora.io clearly violates

1.4.a If you are an Online Service, such as a monetization service, ad-network, back-end hosting service, analytics system or other service where a variable amount of money changes hands after the user downloads your SDK or plugin, you may not upload your SDK or plugin. Services must register as an Asset Store Service in order to distribute on the Unity Asset Store. Services can register by contacting Macy Mills. Service submissions that include non-proprietary content will be rejected unless non-proprietary content is a registered Asset Store Service or is under an open-source license that we support.

and

1.7.b Submissions that require a user to register, sign up or pay extra costs for a package to fully function will be rejected.

Seriously, and it has a big asset store partner image slapped on it. Something is totally not right here, either the people doing the asset reviews need a firing and hire people that will do it right, or the submission guidelines need to be rewritten to reflect actual policy. Either way something shady is going on here.

Edit: also why was this moved, this is clearly a general discussion not an asset or a script.