Unity should either remove or clearly signal when an asset appears unsupported

This is a request to Unity for a response:

As an example, take https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/packs/third-person-cover-shooter-template-88424

I bought this during a period it was in active development, with the intent to integrate into my project later. Now, in my case no harm no foul that the dev ultimately abandoned, however, what exactly is Unity's policy here? In this assets case all the docs were online (the PDF manual just has links to broken URLs), and you can still buy this today for $75. This means even though others bought a long time ago, we no longer have access to the documentation.

In my opinion, and as stated in my review, if the developer's webpage, and support URLs are clearly broken (ie websites are taken down), it's reasonable to expect Unity either flags this clearly to potential customers, or takes the asset down temporarily. In 2021 it's reasonable to implement a crawler that could automate all of this for you, and you should be protecting your customers from this. The top review literally says they wish they had checked the reviews first, clearly indicating you aren't doing enough to warn users on the main page.

You could:

• Crawl the asset store daily / weekly, to ensure support / manual / publisher links are functioning. If they aren't automate a warning to the dev, and either flag the asset visually, or temporarily block sales. This is cheap to implement and close to free to operate.
• Raise an alert on your review team when you see a sudden change in review scores from 4/5 to 1/2. Again, you could then automate a message to publishers, and implement a visual warning to users until a publisher responds to your concern. Your average ratings take a long time to adjust to a sudden abandonment of an asset that breaks on a version change, or is abandoned as a result.
• Do the above (perhaps with softer response) with a keyword search on reviews? "Abandoned" would get you most of them.
• If you don't want to implement new process, I guess a quick win would be a long term vs. short term star rating on the main asset page (eg all time vs. last 90 days)
• On the flip side incentivise devs that respond quickly and update regularly by using a similar visual cue.

Would be really interested in your thoughts Unity - I think customer protection is important, and given what I know of my fellow Unity users, the Asset Store must be a huge part of your revenue, trust being a key component of it's longevity.

As further reason, Unity, let's not let the engine and company be reviewed by proxy through assets with reviews like this - you are in a unique position here to help us all make better products

17 Days ago (1 stars)
No documentation, old videos

a month ago (1 stars)
NEARLY !!! so close.... Misleading..

2 months ago (1 stars)
Had potential but failed to deliver

2 months ago (1 stars)
Potential Lost

2 months ago (1 stars)
Looking for support, Dont bother, there is no support !

2 months ago (2 stars)
Abandoned Asset but with great potential... wish Unity picks this up

2 months ago (1 stars)
Abandoned

 

this one is worse https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/systems/rpg-all-in-one-53542

 

Quickly skimming review agree this one is bad too, there's plenty in truth, and while I dont mind people submitting more here, I would encourage people to share their feelings on proposed ways to deal with this more, as well as Unity chiming in with their views.

Do you have any thoughts on solutions?

 

If support links are broken, take the asset off the store and contact the author.
If it's not fixed, then ban the author from the store permanently.

A few of these type people have made new assets, got the money, then just abandoned the asset.
In the long run this gives Unity a bad name and some people are put off on getting cheated out of their
money. Most people would assume Unity protects their customers rather then the authors.

I have seen that asset on lest 2 sales now.. he has promised V2 for over 2 years now.. and even
said there would be an upgrade last august.. it should be taken off just for that statement alone. imho