Selling on the Unity Asset Store - Earn 70% each sale, non-exclusive!

Thanks for all the information guavaman!
I had a look at the animations and 3 of them are from free packages- 1 from the asset store mocap library and two from two other sources - the rest is mixamo. So the easiest and fastest way to go is to replace the asset store animation with a mixamo animation. I'll check the licenses for the other two and replace them with mixamo stuff as well, if need be.

Yea and I will leave out the camera script and put it into a little demo scene instead, where people can move around with the character and play a bit with the flamethrower and see if they like it. In my opinion this is a far better way to showcase a character than showing just animations without giving people the possibility to test play the character.
So if this is fine for Unity I will do it that way.

 

And while I am at it and to complicate things even more:
I've been using unity free for about two years now and recently obtained a one year student license for Unity pro. I did this to get Unity 5 as soon as possible to check if my textures are working with the new PB shading system. They should, because they were created that way - but I will not know till I can try and see what I have to adjust. That's the reason for my one year pro student license.
All the scripts and the animator state machine that I want to include in the package were made in Unity free and do not utilize any pro features. So when I am going to make the fire effect do I have to switch my license back to Unity free to do that, because my student license doesn't allow me to use Unity pro for commercial purpose? Or am I fine if I use Unity pro as long as I do not include Unity pro features? I don't know how Unity checks for that, but I want to avoid undisirable surprises now.

Here is the link to the model in case anybody is interested:
http://gernotwechselberger.com/josephDrustModel.html

 

@GernotW I updated my previous post with another clarification about Unity's policies on using their content in packages. It seems they're also okay with moderate use of their materials even integrated into a commercial product to be sold on the store. See the post for the quote.

Do you want to know whether if will affect your model or just from a legal perspective? Technically, using the Pro version for making your model is going against the EULA. That said, it's not going to make any difference to the output files. It's possible the editor may send some version information to Unity when you submit the asset to the store (not sure), but that doesn't affect the final package. But if you're not using the pro features anyway, why not just use the free version? The only other benefit you get is the dark skin. Switching between free and pro is super easy. I do it all the time to test during development of my extensions. Just go to Manage License - > Return License to go back to free.

Cool model!

 

Thanks! It was a lot of fun and a lot of pain; but also the amount of time and work I had to put in is astronomical.

The new quote clarifies things really well. So it is not as strict as it looked to me at first glance.
And I'll say good bye to Unity pro for the fire effect then...

 

I can imagine... It's been many years since I did high resolution 3D modeling and it was grueling enough back then before Z-brush and the like took it to the next level. I'd love to get back into it again at some point.

This only pertains to assets made by Unity Technologies. All other assets on the store follow the EULA as written.

 

Hi again!

I asked at the Simplygon forums if I am allowed to sell my character with LODs created by Simplygon but it looks like I won't get an answer there since it was already a week ago. And since simplygon is a service at the asset store I am going to ask the question here one more time.
A previous post stated that there is no way that an asset from the asset store can be redistributed at the asset store. But in that case it is my asset that gets modified. I pay for the modification and sell the modification - it stays all the time my asset I suppose. So I should be allowed to do that, or am a wrong?

 

It doesn't become their property when you submit something. If it did, how would this service be useful enough to pay for?

 

Well, let's pose the question in a different way:
If I include the LODs for my model the buyer gets everything in one package. He only has to pay me.
If I do not include them (and he needs LODs) he has to pay me and the reduction service. The price gets higher and he has to do additional work, that he doesn't have to do, if I include them.
The service is useful in either case, but they can reduce the model not only one time but many times if it sells good and every customer has to do the LODs himself.

 

I don't see anything in the EULA that prevents you from doing this. The only portion of the EULA that I can identify that covers use is this:

2.2, which has all the restrictions, is only concerned with embedding and distributing assets, which you are not doing. You are using the asset as software to modify your models for distribution. I don't see anything in the license covering this or restricting this. In fact, I'd wager it's not there because the asset store originated as a way to distribute media assets (models, textures, etc.) and there are many many things about the asset store that reflect this legacy use case. For example, there is absolutely no special treatment of Software assets in any way on the store, from distribution methods, to the license, to the upgrade model, to copy protection, etc. Those are serious limitations for software developers and I've been saying they need to redesign the store to support proper software distribution for a long time now instead of making is fit into a texture map distribution mold. However, this turns out good for you. In my view, since you are not embedding anything in your asset that is part of the Simplygon package, I'd say you're good. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see anything in the EULA forbidding this use.

The user doesn't have to pay Autodesk (or the dev of whatever modeling prog you use) for the service of creating the model. Nor do they have to pay Adobe for the service of creating the textures. Etc, etc...

 

I am not sure if we have a misunderstanding on this one. What I meant was: If I create the LODs the user doesn't have to do it. If I do not create them, he has to do it himself (if he needs LODs), because he can use the reduction service with the (unreduced) model he bought from me and will have to pay for that of course.

Other than that: Thanks for your help guavaman, very much appreciated!

 

I was trying to make the point that you use many software packages during the production of your model and none of these packages require that you pay them anything extra over the cost of the software to sell the resulting output. If the logic went something like: Simplygon is losing business because you are making the LODs and selling them with your model versus the user buying Simplygon so they can make the LODs themselves. Maybe that's not what you were getting at. Regardless, there's nothing in the EULA forbidding this use, so you have the right to sell it as long as it doesn't include any content from the Simplygon asset.

 

Ah okay, got it now. Thanks!

 

Does anyone know if after being featured in sales you have to resubmit every time to be featured in more sales or does Unity automatically do it?

Thanks,
jrDev

 

There would be an option to cancel automatic re-inclusion in future sales then. There's no such option, so you'd have to request that again, Unity wouldn't do that automatically.

 

Not saying I don't want to, just wanted to know if anyone who has been in multiple sales had to resubmit asset over and over.

Oh and flipbookee, how has the final version of SI3 been coming along? Haven't had enough time to dig into the beta...

Thanks,
jrDev

 

Hehe, well Si3 got to a point where it works pretty well, no more crashes, very fast, and auto-completion is correct except in some rare cases. I was preparing Beta 3 and then I had to change my job and move to another city/country/continent, so for the last month there was very little progress because of that. I'm done with that now and I'll start preparing it for the final release. Any help in testing that will be more than welcome!

 

Hello. I'm new to selling assets.. I'm just wondering how the charge back work? I did have a sale this November but then after a week charge back appeared.. What just happened? I didn't receive any warning or notice at all.

 

A chargeback means the credit card company reversed the charge. It's usually a result of fraudulent use of a card. The chargeback is passed on to you and is deducted from your next payout.

 

sad.. soooo sad.. thanks for the info though.. free stuff for scamer.. no hope.. lel

 

Has anyone of you ever experienced, that someone purchased an asset of your, but that information is not available at https://publisher.assetstore.unity3d.com/sales.html ... I mean, have anyone of you ever doubted about Unity Technologies transparency ? ...

 

No I dont see why unity would bother since its probably chump change for them anyway.

 

Plus they'd get in big legal trouble if it were found out. As far as I know the system is automated, so what you see is what you get.

--Eric

 

Yes,it seems that the guy that posted a review for one of my assets 2 days ago , purchased the asset long time before ( cause my last purchasing for that asset took place in 10th of January ,accorrding to https://publisher.assetstore.unity3d.com/sales.html ) or he simply found a way to take it from someone that already had purchased it ... I have no idea ... so ,until a clear evidence, Unity Technologies is all transparent and hides nothing to me ...

 

How to configure Google Analytics to get correct links to assets in the statistic? Now I get links like this: https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/assetstore/package/16359

 

Taking 30% of the profits is a bit pricey and unfair for both the authors and the buyers. That's essentially raising prices by 30% to get developers the necessary funds to make the asset. Do you guys need to take that big of a cut?

 

70% to the developer is quite generous, and one of the reasons the Asset Store has successfully attracted so many developers. The Unreal Marketplace is following suit. It's hard to find industry numbers for third party plugin stores, but you might compare this to royalties for games themselves. Independent developers frequently get 15-50% of wholesale, the higher end being for developer-funded games, which is similar to the funding model for Asset Store developers. 3D Realms managed to negotiate 70% on a title back in their Duke Nukem heyday, but that's much higher than the industry average.

 

Right, and considering Unity...
a) makes the software engine you're using...
b) made the asset store as a successful distribution model...
Paying 30% on your sales is very reasonable. Sure, I agree as an asset seller I'd love for the percentage to be lower and more in my favor, but calling it "unfair" is simply unfair. It's completely fair.

 

Thanks for the perspective. It's just that asset store devs aren't developing for the mass market game devs are so they could use all the buck they could get. Also, Unity gets $1500 for the softer engine and + $750 per major update which is why I don't think there's a need to take a 30% cut. Plus, doesn't making 1/3 of all asset store profits kind of motivate them to leave holes in their product? It's a good business strategy to get devs to cough up some extra money but it's counterproductive and annoying.

I mean, there are so many things lacking in the physics and navigation features as well as the editor that with only a few tweaks to the source code, could be added in. If Unity Navigation just ran in fixed update, it could be viable. Instead, many devs are forced to buy Aaron Granberg's $100 pathfinding asset because Unity's is just 1 step away from satisfactory. Another example is the GUI editor. Up until a few months ago, NGUI was a necessary purchase because Unity's GUI required so much plumbing code. Of course, I'm very thankful they finally shipped out a decent GUI editor but it took a really long time, making a lot of devs have to buy NGUI.

Anyways, those are just my extended 2 cents on the matter. I do think that Unity does a lot of things right - all the fundamental stuff like rendering, audio, lighting, licensing, etc.. It could be worse.

 

Of course they are. If Unity isn't "mass market game dev", then nothing is.

They're running a business. With Unity 5 being free now, I expect that there may be some pressure on the store to contribute more to the bottom line.

No. Are you the sort of person that would intentionally make a shoddy product because of economic realities? The exposure of being on the asset store more than makes up for the 30%.

Have fun trying to run a business where you don't make any money. As mentioned above, 30% is standard by now; when Apple popularized it with the App Store, it was disruptive at the time, since the previous standard was typically the other way around (70% for the store, 30% for the seller). That wasn't really that long ago...how short people's memories are....

--Eric

 

Yeah, the 30% is standard and I guess it could be worse. But what about the examples I posed? Do you think they'll ever tweak their navigation a bit so devs don't have to buy an asset that does the same thing?

Note: I'm pretty new to asset store publishing and these are just my first impressions and thoughts - my 2 cents. Take them for whatever you think they're worth.

 

I'm quite happy with Unity's navigation system. UT is constantly putting Asset Store developers "out of business" -- and I mean that in a good way for most people, if not the developer who's selling a product that fills a gap. Before Mecanim, my go-to animation state machine product was the excellent SAGE. (If you're using Legacy animation, SAGE is still the way to go.) Similarly, I suppose NGUI will be on the way out, now that the new Unity UI is becoming standard practice. And there are plenty more examples like this.

But as Unity introduces new technology, it also introduces new opportunities for developers. When Mecanim first came out, it didn't have animation events. Event System for Mecanim filled that gap quite nicely.

 

I guess I didn't give Unity enough credit for how much they've already done. Sorry, Unity staff. Thanks for making this great engine for us.

 

Hello I submited mine to the asset store...

. How i can make it popular?

 

Probably should upload a video with a smooth framerate. Also, I can't see a game using that environment successfully because it's kind of generic and low-poly in a primitive kind of way, no offense. The fog was a good idea. Adding some image effects would help cover this up too.

 

Hi , i guess this is where to ask my question ..

is it possible to sell "exclusive unique" assets ?
meaning one asset for one Customer only (with the price accordingly of course)

thanks

 

No.

 

too bad.. some would appreciate a unique character for their own project

 

Well maybe what you could do is offer "reskinning" for an extra fee since most people look for that anyway.

 

sounds like a good move

 

Hello, I posted my first Asset for approval 10 days ago and I haven't heard a peep. I guess I am wanting to hear your call is in a queue etc. Is that length of time normal?

 

First time assets can take 2 weeks or more, sometimes longer if events like Unite or E3 are going on. (Unite Europe recently happened.) Best of luck with your asset!

 

Yeah, the waiting game is becoming more common. I posted an update to one of my assets almost more than a week ago and it still isn't approved... That's just an update, not a new asset. It's just a question of manpower and considering how many submissions the Asset Store team must get I think they do a pretty good job. But yes, The Wait sucks.

 

Yeah, you need some patience. Took 2 1/2 weeks for me. Tho, the waiting time is the only downpoint. They doing an good job, needed to resubmit mine and they gave me an complete explanation why it was declined. Resubmitted already. Very nice imho!

 

I like the new upgrade feature, it will save money for old customers.

 

hi all.
I am planning to sell my 3d assets in the unity asset store. but i don't have unity pro lic. will unity free lic allow me to sale my 3d assets. i will surely buy unity lic when i am getting 500$ and above in the unity assets store every month. because i going to use the unity asset store sales as my monthly income. and also in the free version agreement. you can earn up to 100000$ yearly. will unity asset store gives me full support on my sales ?

because i don't have money to invest on the unity lic

 

Sure, you can sale your assets even if you don't have unity pro license.

 

This is a legitimate question guys. I recently got my own first asset on the asset store, and I was very stressed towards the end of the whole process. And now that it is on the asset store I sit here thinking 'What now?'... I can't do marketing or anything of that sort! Anyone have some incredible success story or nice tips? Thank you.

 

You can do a lot of marketing for free:

• YouTube video tutorials
  
• Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnityAssets/)
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Your own website
• etc.

The best marketing is good word of mouth. Provide the best support you can. Remember that people are pouring their hearts into their games. If they're depending on your tools, then you should do less.

 

I have a small question. Would I be allowed to include a few textures from the Blacksmith demo as "Default textures" in my package? The package needs some textures to work with.

 

I think Unity lets you use any of their free assets in your own packages.