The Asset Store becomes more and more questionable

I just stumbled upon the "The Dark Dungeon Kit" asset

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/environments/dungeons/the-dark-dungeon-kit-122764

which I was about to buy, but then I read the description:

What is the definition of "several"? 1%? 99%? So basically I can grab whatever CC0 is and sell it on the store?

And given the fact that Unity doesn't give you a refund if the asset seller doesn't agree to it, basically everyone can implicitly have you agree to a license you don't agree to in the end because it's not possible to read it before you bought it and downloaded the asset. I tried reading the Third-PartyLicense.txt file by checking out the package contents. Well, you can't read it.

Besides there's a link in the asset description. You download a demo from the asset store, but there's no warning that you're leaving the Unity site and instead download from somewhere else. So is Unity then responsible if the file contains malicious code? There's no way to tell whether the downloaded stuff now belonged to Unity or not.

I've had my fair share of false advertising recently with assets showing screenshots of things which just aren't in the asset you download. No mentioning that the assets aren't included and Unity refused to give a refund.

One of the examples which are there for years now is TerrainComposer 2:

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/terrain/terraincomposer-2-65563

When you look at the screenshots and the description of "- Includes many examples and presets." one might assume that most of the awesome looking stuff is included. Well, it's not. And you don't get a refund either. At least I didn't when I purchased it when it cost a lot more. And it's still on sale that way.

My conclusion: This is far from being a professional store.

 

Based on my experience with the asset store, your example is an exception not the rule. Over the years I've purchased over 100 assets and rarely run into any issue. My only complaint about the asset store is that there are a few devs that don't support their product very well and then they get deprecated.

 

Why would that be a problem? This dev actually is mentioning there is CC0 content, but how many other dev do the same? CC0 is "no copyright; use it, sell it, whatever.." kind of license, and there is no need to mention you are using some cc0 textures for your models or what ever cc0 content in your asset, or even selling those cc0 content as it.

Yeah, that sucks. Shouldn't be even possible. Those licenses should be mentioned in "additional license" or something like that, and at least in old Asset Store, there is a link that shows "additional license" if developer added that. However what i see for example for Oculus, there is no such link, and the license is only mentioned in description as a link to their website.

So, while Oculus license says it's fine to distribute the source code, there is a conflict with Unity Asset Store EULA (you can use assets in your games, not limited to Oculus Approve Products) :

*bolded by me