For Unity's asset store, how can we balance quality control of submissions against a diverse range of offerings for developers?

Introduction

Balancing quality control of submissions against a diverse range of offerings for Unity's asset store presents a critical trade-off. This scenario involves managing the tension between maintaining high standards and providing developers with a wide variety of assets. I'll address this challenge by analyzing the ecosystem, identifying key metrics, designing experiments, and proposing a decision framework.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm assuming Unity's asset store is a marketplace for game developers. Could you confirm if there have been any recent changes to the store's business model or positioning?

Why it matters: Changes could affect our approach to quality control and diversity. Expected answer: No major changes recently. Impact: If there were changes, we'd need to adjust our strategy accordingly.

• Business Context: Based on industry trends, I'm thinking revenue might be split between Unity and asset creators. What's our current revenue share model with creators?

Why it matters: This affects incentives for both Unity and creators. Expected answer: 70/30 split favoring creators. Impact: A different split might change how we approach quality vs. quantity.

• User Impact: I'm guessing we have different user segments among developers. Can you share insights on our main user segments and their preferences regarding asset quality vs. variety?

Why it matters: Different segments may have varying needs, affecting our trade-off decision. Expected answer: Mix of indie and professional developers with differing priorities. Impact: We might need to tailor our approach for different segments.

• Technical: Considering the scale of submissions, I'm wondering about our current review process. Is it manual, automated, or a combination?

Why it matters: This affects our capacity to maintain quality at scale. Expected answer: Combination of automated checks and manual review. Impact: Purely manual review might limit our ability to increase diversity.

• Resource: Given the potential need for increased quality control, I'm curious about our current team capacity. Do we have dedicated staff for asset review, and if so, how many?

Why it matters: Resource constraints could limit our ability to scale quality control. Expected answer: Small dedicated team with some automation support. Impact: Limited resources might push us towards more automated solutions.