Is Asset Store life time free upgrades affecting the developers?

I'd like to raise this question to the developers in the Asset Store.

Surely, they are getting a stream of new purchases every month. But, for now, there's no scope of selling upgrades in Asset Store. All future upgrades are free.

Development of the assets are mainly funded by the new purchasers, but even if the current owners of the asset wants to fund the development of the asset by paying for the next version, there's no scope for doing that. Except, the developers must sell the upgrade as a new product. There are some assets that I'd like to pay for an upgraded version. But I can't.

I'd like to hear from the developers if this scheme is affecting them and the development of their asset and codes. I'm sure this concerns us all.

 

All my assets have always had lifetime free upgrades anyway, since before the asset store existed, so it doesn't affect me.

--Eric

 

You would think unity would support having paid upgrades especially if you are maintaining updating the software for years -- they are after all they do the same thing. Unless you did a "kit version 2" and people had to purchase the new version.

 

Up to the developer but imo early adopters should get free upgrades as a bonus for supporting the asset early on.

There are lots of things that sell during a discount where the person otherwise wouldn't purchase it. More sales at lower price = happy customer = good review = more new customers.

Can't tell you how annoying it is when you buy something that has broken features and all you can do is wait for an update since you can't get your money back I buy some stuff when it first releases at a discounted price that I otherwise wouldn't buy. I also take a risk any time I buy something that doesn't have reviews.

Also look at allegorithmic when they updated b2m and released the update as a new asset, look at the comments from the old version from unity 3.x days.....

Also some sellers have 5 different versions of the same asset like http://u3d.as/publisher/axis-game-factory-llc/5b8 as it stands, so I guess it would be nice to have the option available for developers rather than flooding the store with redundant assets.

 

Stuff like that wouldnt happen if the asset store was more sophisticated, where each developer could have there own "store". Like what gabe was talking about for the steam store. So instead of getting this asset or that one, you click on the developer lets say. Now they got the ability to do things like buy 2 -assets get the third one free. So you have your own "sales". So you might say why dont you just, or you could have 5 different versions of the same asset without flooding the main store.

For example I am working on a bowling kit. I could have a basic version, a pro version with multiplayer another version using Badumna, then another for the art pack. But right now ill just have 1 or two versions

 

I was indicating scripts and extensions. Especially the bigger ones like NGUI, PlayMaker, Shader forge etc. Not models or textures. There's no point in that.

These developers would be reluctant to push new versions with new features if they are not really paid for it. Of course they are not doing that. But in any software product new versions are generally paid. Asset store is more like App store or Steam. Once bought, you have life time access to upgrades. But content creation software are not games. They have much longer life and had to be maintained.

Somewhere I feel, this policy is broken. Right now Unity has regular influx of new users. So, developers can eat their bread based on new purchases. But, if the saturation hits, there's no way for the current customers to support it's development.

 

They need to introduce In App Purchase for the Asset Store!

 

It seems okay, but it does also seem that unpaid upgrades places a certain burden on the developer, a lack of incentive or a possibly reason not to bother upgrading? ie it's extra work for little pay.. besides the added benefit gained from improving the product and thus landing more sales. I don't mind it but I can maybe see how people with a bigger asset might have to put in a tonne more effort. Particularly some of the big assets seem to get updated quite often (which can be a sign of health and trust etc) which I guess has to be seen as an investment by the developer... though it would sometimes be nice to get an upgrade fee. That said though really, it would only affect existing customers. For new customers you can always put your price up.

 

I would presume you just make a whole new asset. Ultimately the result will be the same, all except it makes less fuddling with Asset store UI.

If they do 'paid' upgrades all this will end up with is a stream of buttons in your asset store downloader saying like 'DL version 1.0, DL Version 2.0' etc etc. Whereas it just being a new Asset will do the same thing.

 

Well, that's not really a reason not to have the feature.
They can fix that quite easily by having it so that if you buy the asset, it automatically downloads the latest and most updated asset. While if you have a older version, once new bigger updates come out, you pay a small fee to get it or something along those lines.

 

And the problem with all that is .. You buy any asset with all these listed features.. You get it.. It has 1/2 of them With a road map .. Except then all the sudden well that that is getting pushed to the next paid upgrade. and how long till support on your current paid asset stops so they can focus on the next great paid version.

I would be mighty pissed to buy an addon and be told well we are no longer going to support that add on you just purchased cause we are working on the new version and its a paid version so .. see you and your money in 2 weeks

 

Considering the number of developers registered on the asset store, I'd guess it's not really affecting things much. The more your assets get purchased, the more money you have to upgrade/improve them; the more you upgrade/improve them, the more your assets get purchased. Obviously there's a limit to this... but if you reach that limit, you'll probably have enough money to pay others to work on your tools using the interest.

 

I think free upgrades is a nice anti-piracy measure. It's a method that doesn't hurt paying customers and it's an incentive to purchase if people truly want the free upgrades.

 

You could even put a "lifetime warranty" on it, for like $50 or something.

 

Well, lots of analogies like problem with pushed upgrades, piracy etc. Of course it's the buyers like us who enjoys free lifetime pass. But these same analogies doesn't work with bigger software like unity itself.

Right now, with this policy the devs can manage a living if they can keep their asset small and less costly to develop. And most of the devs of asset store are one/two man team. Bigger dev team won't see a business in this if there's no chance of paid upgrades. Some of them are already bypassing this problem by releasing new versions as a new asset. And so, redundancy will follow and buyers will be pissed.

This way, we are also missing out bigger and more advanced assets. Asset store is perhaps the most important aspect of Unity. More it flourishes, more better for us.

 

as a publisher myself I can say that I don't mind lifetime free upgrades. It prevents market fragmentation that would happen if buyers are never sure when a new version will happen. It does reduce the incentive to do major upgraded but Tue market is big and the sales are pretty steady.

Also, look what happens with unity itself when bug fixes are a major effort and get pushed to the next major version. People aren't always happy to have to pay for those.

 

As a publisher I also would say I don't mind so much. Actually, I believe it's the way software ought to be in a more perfect world.

I've had a couple experiences with purchasing software years ago that I still get free updates for (FL Studio as one example). It really is refreshing. It wasn't cheap at the time but over the years the continuous updates and access to full new versions is really great. This feels much more like a real investment, as opposed to "investing" in photoshop or Unity for $$$$$ and then not being able to simply update a year later when the "newest greatest thing" comes out in the next version without giving more money.

I really don't know how sustainable it is on the asset store... it's unlikely an asset is going to achieve market saturation unless there really is no competition for it, so continued success is directly related to the growth of Unity as a platform.

Though certainly having more seller tools and control over sales, promotions, statistics, and such would be a HUGE BOON to asset store publishers. Also more engagement from Unity itself would be really nice... currently there is absolutely zero communication as to what's happening or planned for the store. It's a tough pill for individuals who are building a business around the asset store.

 

It doesn't affect me directly, but not being able to sell upgrades is hell for various publishers I know, and it's pretty understandable. Payed upgrades are fundamental for software, because you don't want your previous customers to pay full price, but you might improve your software so much (especially in case of complex plugins) that it deserves a payed upgrade. Software works like that, simple enough. It's probably the biggest missing feature of the Asset Store, and I hope it will be improved soon.

 

I probably wouldn't use this feature if it were available, but I don't really agree with the criticisms against it. When buying something from the asset store are you not buying it to get the currently advertized features (and perhaps the hope of getting more)? Even if you're an 'early adopter' and have to wait for some bug fixes, you'd still be getting the product you paid for, and if a discount system were implemented then you'd end up paying less for the updates anyway.

Ultimately, asset store publishers can already do this by just creating a new asset, or selling it on their own website or something. But these are all just work arounds for the big issue that chingwa mentioned: We need more tools! Seriously, how many years has the store been up? Right now there's no way to even see how many people visited your store page, such a feature could no doubt be created in a day by any bored programmer.

 

If I'm contemplating buying something and I know that it will have free lifetime upgrades, I will be much more inclined to buy.

Some people are working with a smaller production window and they may just want a tool that works now and they won't look back. But, in their case the upgrades are irrelevant anyway.

IMO, small upgrades should probably be free, major upgrades should be chargable (up to the developer). Same as Unity. A major upgrade should mean a massive overhaul or something that adds a lot of functionality that represents a lot of work that shouldn't just be considered a bonus, but rather represents work that should be compensated for.

Another school of thought is that by having free upgrades for life, the process is simplified. Developers already have a ton of things going on, having to worry about if they should buy the next version or if the old version they have will be compatible with the next Unity upgrade just adds unessesary problems. This forces streamlining and smooth workflow.

 

+1 @Khyrid

I would pay for certain updates. If some updates contain some little functionality-tweaks or bugfixes no need to charge anything, especially for bugfixes. We pay and hope we get solid products.
But if for example the author of the plugin redesigns the whole core of the plugin, making it more efficient/ more understandable/ easier to use/whatever then there's no problem at all to charge a little fee.

 

I'm very happy with the way the Asset Store is set up for me as a developer.
If the products would be all on their own as standalone products I would accept paid updates, given they are not showcased in the Asset Store. That's just a big difference to me, personally.
Lifetime free upgrade is the way I prefer, either way. As a customer and a developer.

If a product is ridiculously awesomely enhanced a complete new release would be preferred any way for me since my needs for a project would be different anyway or not fitting anymore
Also yeh, unity is doing it with their software - they charge for major releases. And how often is this worth a bloated issue or thread creation when it's about features missing/being promised. God, if I imagine that for many many extensions for unity itself....haha, good times.

For me the key feature is that if Unity wouldn't be there, I would have no product AND place to sell. And just for me personally I find it highly fair to have certain regulations that I have to conform to in order to benefit from the free exposure I get in return. The Asset Store is an awesome toolset as is and a very precious one for me, personally.
I don't want Unity to make the absolute possible dream place for my personal journey as a developer.
Yeh, we sigh when there's a new unity patch that breaks our products and we have to invest time into solving things and make it compatible. But that is part of the symbiosis we decided to be part in with unity.

Also let's not forget that if a product proves superuseful and valuable sooner or later unity might want to incorporate that into their core pipeline on their own. So it always is some sort of risk to develop an extension for unity per se.
It's more about how long it takes them to make it work on their end.

Not a single products comes to my mind that I could see functioning with paid updates. I would be offended, if that would happen. These are all highly focussed on improving stuff within unity so there are certain limits implied that are not existent with standalone software.
There is this big safety net that units offers with the store for a super growing userbase each month/year, that I have to invest absolutely nothing into it. If I see a niche that I feel unity shows temporary, I could theoretically jump in and fix it.
If I were some big company that has to promote my new products that have to stand for their own each year (whatever the release cycle is) on my own I would sure think differently.

The mentioning of this "They need to introduce In App Purchase" made me laugh and cry, no matter how it was meant.
I'm not trying to attack or hurt anyone but some of these thoughts and ideas come from people that didn't have that super selling product on the store, yet. Neither have I, just for clarification.
But I know that this is not unity to fix things. It's about me not having had the idea or skills to create it yet. And that motivates me by a ton.

I have my own gripes with the AssetStore being that the communication/guidelines could be improved, but so far it is the best and most awesome place that I am allowed to sell products that I helped develop. And I would hate if it would seriously change or gets bloated by features that are not really needed

 

This make me laugh. As if paying more money magically un-impedes.

There is one asset developer that is splinter their main asset in sub-asset products and improving them as new assets but that's not paying for upgrades. I simply don't buy the new splintered assets if I don't need them.

Ain't no way I'm paying for asset upgrades as it amounts to a subscription plan for assets. With over 650K Unity users asset store developers need to look for new customers and stop trying to milk their original customers.

The couple times I've tried to collab, the other parties have had pirated assets. Oh, you don't want to collab, you want copies of the assets I paid for. Good asset functionality is eventually integrated into Unity anyway. So your model would erode Asset Store income even faster.

 

Okay imagine something like scoreflash. Its a plugin i have that i like, lets say for reason that it was no longer selling. Now lets say a few years go by and its unity8 its now no longer works but because there was no money to develop it further its a defunct product. But lets say they had some money from there existing user basse, it was enough for them to fix it, then we get to keep using our software.

 

The asset store mailing list exists, which has engagement from Unity.

--Eric

 

i suppose there are a couple of ways you could think about assets and upgrades/updates.

if its updates like bug fixes or feature tweaks then those should obviously be free.

if you have added new features, re-written or re-factored large pieces, or any other major upgrades, and you want to sell this as a new upgrade, then why not make it it's own asset if it's different enougn on its own to merit that. then people who paid for the original can still use that, and if they want/need the new features you have created then they can get that. then they also don't have to worry about testing the new version etc.

just don't make users feel ripped off if you are trying to sell the same thing again though.

 

OK, I give up... link??
(And yes, I know how to use google, and I know how to search on forums, and I know how to make my own breakfast, but goddamn I can't find a reference to this secret mailing list anywhere!!)

 

It's by invitation as far as I know.

--Eric

 

say WHAT?

 

Unlimited upgrades is of course very nice, no doubt. The downside though is that at some point, it does not make any sense for the publishers to continue working on their assets or provide adequate support any more.

We can't indefinitely rely on getting new customers each month, because you have to consider that with each new customer, the support overhead increases and it will increase until choking point, at which you will either have to cut back on the support or stop developing the asset any further (remember NGUI?).

I don't like one bit the idea of creating v2 of your asset in parallel to v1, it is just generally confusing and smells like a scam.

In my opinion, the Asset Store should have a paid upgrade option built in, complete with discounts for upgrading customers and such. But it should be available to only certain types of assets that can't be considered "complete" and it should be regulated by the Store. The Store should accept a paid upgrade request only if it is about new features (not advertised before), not bug fixes. Also, I think a time step of minimum 1-2 years sounds reasonable. With clear policies like that, the trust issues would be minimised.

I have enough ideas for upgrading my product to continue development for a lifetime, would be great if there was a business model available within the Store to make it possible.

Cheers,
Pärtel

 

There's really no issue here. Nor does the store need paid upgrades or iAP by another name IMHO. Sellers should be grateful they're in charge of refunds & buyers should be grateful at the lack of iAP style monetization. It would only end in tears.

 

I understand where people are coming from with this. On the other hand I bought B2M V 1.0, which never quite works correctly and it wasn't cheap and now I am supposed to buy V 2.0. Might consider it if the first one was perfect but now I have an asset on my hands that works some of time and I'm not going to invest any more in that. I no longer buy substances at all in fact. I have the Full Body IK which is still in Beta. I have a game idea for that but it probably won't get done but I liked the asset so I took a risk on it, and it is a risk because asset developers can abandon them when they don't make much money and a few have. Case in point Shaderbox which was expensive and is fairly useless. If the norm was for paid upgrades I certainly wouldn't buy an asset in beta, nor would I buy an asset before I was going to use it and was certain I was going to use it. Including the daily deals because it's not a deal if I get 50% off and six months later before I need the asset I have to buy an upgrade for it. It could change the way developers shop on the store. It might just mean bringing products to the store when they were out of beta which would mean no chance of getting some money early, no early adopters, maybe some products would not get made at all in that case. Maybe teh Playmaker way of doing things is better. Free upgrades for the core, any additional addons have to be paid for.

 

Just wanted to point out that the IAP comment I made up there was a joke.

Though if I'm not mistaken (can't remember), wasn't IAP Apple's response to this exact issue on the App Store? I'm not saying that Unity should do this (on a personal note I dislike IAP), just giving some thought on how others tackled this issue.

EDIT: Personal opinion as an asset dev. is that current situation is fine considering userbase growth.

 

No. If something doesn't work in v1, you don't buy v2... unless you are using it beyond it's intended purpose.

 

I'm rather confused by the "upgrade system is evil" argument. 99% payed programs or plugins in the world release payed upgrades once every couple years (with upgrades I mean major versions that introduce many new features, not bugfixes which should be included in the previous version), and that's the way developers earn a living. Why Unity plugin creators should not want the same?

Also, for users, not having an upgrade system doesn't mean having free lifetime upgrades. Quite the contrary: it means that when a new major version comes out, and you're interested, you'll have to pay fully for it, instead than getting a discount.

 

It means that when a new major version comes out, you get it free. The only way you'd pay for it is if the creator made a new package, but that's not a new version, that's a different asset entirely.

--Eric

 

I would buy into a upgrade system in the asset store when all asset store assets come as source code. And saying, 'oh, you bought a crummy asset' doesn't cut it with the QC that goes on to get an asset into the asset store and the lack of meaningful review and metrics on existing assets?

And now we hear asset store sellers want to 'oh, version 0.9 you bought don't work we want to charge you though for the functionality that was promised in version 0.95 though via upgrade.'

If this actually happens I'll have to decompile some .dlls and I definitely want Unity to grant the ability that you ever downloaded or bought in the asset store to be hidden. I don't want some knucklehead system of Asset Store 'Notifications' telling me to buy an upgrade to X number of assets.

And a lot of asset store sellers will find a lot of what has been sold was something to one off on the chance it might be useful and convenient someday and isn't something to inspire one into a daily cycle of IAP / Zynga style money grubbing.

 

Exactly, however, most assets get free upgrades so it was bought thinking this was the case, it turned out not to be. Now V.1 has been abandoned, no bugfixes etc. If it was expected that assets would have paid upgrades pretty certain it would change my buying habits. I have over 1500 assets bought from the store. If I have to pay to upgrade all the editor extensions I have, which were bought to speed up development, then either I would stay with an older version of Unity that the assets were created for so Unity would be deprived of the upgrade fee, or I would only buy any asset that stated 'lifetime free upgrades', or I would take no purchase risks at all and only buy an asset at time of use. Paid upgrades would cost me thousands of dollars. Unity is very easy to use but rapid development with it relies on the asset store. Changing the way things are paid for would have a knock on effect on the ability to sell there as well. If I knew I was looking at paying for upgrades then I would just buy Shaderforge (which I have) and not bother with Skyshop (which I have) or Alloy (which I have) or the Livenda SSR pack (which I have), or the Core framework (which I have) or the PostFX(which I have) or Color etc etc. I would only buy the one thing that could do all this which would severely limit sales by asset sellers. The Unity asset store would become similar to the Garagegames shop. A lot of the stuff in the store fills gaps in Unity, gaps other engines don't have. The entire ecosystem would change.

@Izitmee - paying for an upgrade in Unity is not quite the same. Unity is the system on which all these other plugins depend. It's popularity drives sales on the asset store, the more people use unity the more sales.for asset sellers. Besides no-one is against paid upgrades per se, a seller should simply state beforehand their attitude and what one is buying. Look at the Localized Dialogue System, when a new version comes out and there are major upgrades he increases the price for new buyers, meanwhile those that have the system get improvements and rave more about it which I'm certain would encourage others to buy. The real problem with some assets is that they're too niche. A developer may have thought that it would sell like hotcakes but it doesn't so suddenly free upgrades don't seem worth it. In point of fact I have loads of these type of assets that are first sold with the promise that more and more stuff will be added, extra trigger scenes or scripts, extra textures, extra models extra functionality and in most cases nothing is ever added. I just consider myself lucky if the asset is not abandoned completely. That's the other thing. No asset developer is tied into maintaining the product they can stop all support at any time. Some do.

 

If I look at my list of assets, the only thing i would actually upgrade would be scoreflash and fingergestures. So its not all the assets would even need it, alot of hte assets i buy are kind of 1 and done type things where I will never look at again, so i wouldn't care if there was updates. So unless your asset has alot of users anyway (thousands), and they kept using it then you wouldnt have anyone upgrading it anyway -- meaning it wouldnt be worthwhile to make updates anyway -- because no one would pay to upgrade.

 

My understanding is that the unity asset store is non exclusive. (unlike Apple, Google & Microsoft stores)
So developers are free to offer custom buying method outside of the asset store.

For example developers might need to provide special educational site licences pricing,
offer combo discount, tech support, etc...

So offer your main version on the store, but offer special upgrade licenses using other methods.

@sicga123: Its not unity that drive asset store sales... its the available assets that drive unity sales.
It might be a chicken and the egg thing, but just ask yourself, what would an iphone be with no apps ?
The third party developers make a solid platform successful. (MS Windows being another case in point)

 

Besides already there are asset sellers that advertise free lifetime upgrades but one doesn't take much notice because of experience with asset sellers on the store. Some are brilliant some are rubbish and words are worthless only actions count. But if it was the norm for paid upgrades then that 'lifetime upgrades' claim would be more relevant, and as there are numerous duplicated assets anyway, some come out shortly after one another e.g. Jove and then Alloy, one would delay purchase upon release just to wait and see. It would certainly stop impulse buying. I buy a lot of assets I may need in the future simply because if I don't spend the money now I will need it for something else, my whole asset acquisition strategy is based on 'robbing from Peter to pay Paul'. If 'lifetime free upgrades' becomes a meaningful selling strategy then asset sellers are right back here because if it's not promised it will damage sales the same way having no rating or less than 5 stars damages sales.

 

What would an iPhone be without apps? Well it would be a phone which is what it was meant to be which is not a bad thing in itself.

Unity was successful before the asset store because of it's ease of use. The type of assets that would be subject to paid upgrades such as shaders, editor extensions and scripting packages are there to fill perceived gaps in Unity.These things would not exist without Unity so of course Unity drives their sales. What effect will the new GUI in 4.6 have on all third party GUI systems? What about the multi-threading in 5.0 or the PBS that will be coming in. Of course Unity drives those sales. The asset store contents built up because Unity is easy to use it's not easy to use because of the asset store. The asset store allows rapid development and extremely rapid prototyping it is most certainly a factor in developers choosing Unity now as part of the whole ecosystem, but it is not the driving force behind Unity's success.

 

That sounds so utopian

 

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. Devs on the asset store that want to force new purchases just change the name of their product (or their company for that fact) and just put it back on with a few new upgrades. "its a completely new re-write from the ground up", like we believe that. LOL

 

As I said, that's a different asset entirely. It's not a new version. Even if they just changed the name, it's still technically a different asset. But do you have any examples of that actually happening? This idea:

seems to be objectively wrong. Unless someone comes up with a concrete example of this happening, since I don't know of any assets on the store that do this offhand, and certainly none of mine do. Plus it doesn't sound like a very good idea from a marketing standpoint, since to some extent you'd have to start all over again.

--Eric

 

The only opinions that matter here are the ones of those laying cash on the table, and that's the bottom line.

Scenario A: The current system where all assets must offer free upgrades. (I assume).

Scenario B: If Unity left it up to the developer. You can choose to offer free lifetime upgrades and you get a nice seal on your product so buyers know.

Scenario C: No free upgrades are allowed beyond simple bug fixes. Unity forces charges for new versions in order to maintain healthy and fair competition. I think nobody advocates this scenario.

-So, 'A' being what we have now, how well does the average asset sell?

-Can we conclude that the assets sell better than 'C'?

-In 'B' would products with the free upgrade for life out-sell others?

-If free upgrades increases sales, is this increase nessesary for the success of the asset developers to make any profit at all, or would it just limit their potential income?

-Are assets underdeveloped because developers feel that they won't be able to make money off the asset in the longrun, leaving the asset store filled with failed half working assets that never get the polish they should?

To answer any of thes equestions we would need to see some numbers. I'm assuming Unity already reviewed this stuff.

 

This is the biggest risk of not having paid upgrades be an option. A couple of years down the line, Unity runs the risk of having popular assets go without getting updated because they will be getting no more money out of them regardless. For script plugins, especially, this means that scripts are likely to not be updated for the newer versions of Unity.

 

Geez, all you going to find out is that all but a handful of assets are updated regularly anyway and those assets functionality or better should be integrated into Unity as has been done with the 2D system and GUIs. There is no doubt that the average person will stop buying from the asset store if they know they will be asked to pay for minor upgrades every week or so. Finances aside, having your credit card or PayPal account hit up constantly with upgrade fees for asset is out of the question for someone that is reasonable with their ability to set a budget.

People claiming 'buyer beware' are out of touch and haven't been victimized and need an attitude adjustment without being victimized themselves to change their armchair quarterback preaching. There are consumer laws to protect against abuse and those laws need to be strengthened, even if General Motors and other manufacturers are uncomfortable.

 

Years, weeks... Seems to be a dissconnect here.

 

No one is suggesting that, if I buy Awesomesauce Plugin v 1.0, that in a week (or a month or a year), Awesomesauce Inc can then suddenly charge me another $10 without my approval for v2.0, nor make my v1.0 plugin stop working - I just don't get the 2.0 features. You know... the same pricing model Unity itself has.