3 ms·
The whole article is essentially: 1. "Some background our plug-in" 2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store" 3. "We explain why this seems like a double
by mort96 3y ago
The whole article is essentially:
1. "Some background our plug-in"
2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store"
3. "We explain why this seems like a double standard"
4. "We made our own store where people can get our plug-in now that it's not in the Unity store"
IMO the only thing wrong with the blog post is that it's missing a paragraph after the "Introducing the Videolabs Store" heading. There should be a sentence or two there about how people can now get the Unity plug-in through the Videolabs Store before they go on to talk about everything else people can get there.
- oefrha 3y agoYou left out half of the article (I’m definitely not exaggerating here) about consulting packages and other products in your “essentially”. Yes, the article would be a lot better without the half you also seem to believe doesn’t belong.
- mort96 3y agoWhen the store is introduced, listing the services which can be bought through it is only natural. I am 100% convinced that neither you nor all the other people would have such a negative reaction if there was a simple connecting paragraph which explicitly connects the plug-in to the store in some PR-y "we care about our users" kind of way.
- oefrha 3y agoIt is not at all natural to dedicate half of the text to unrelated promotions in a negative piece about another company. When you do that, some people assume you’re taking the free publicity to promote unrelated stuff. As I said in another comment, it’s totally natural to mention <banned thing> is now available at your own store. It’s okay to briefly call attention to other products as well. But a long piece filled with marketing speak is not the way to do it. Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on the marketing BS, I’m not going to respond further.