Fair call on the bundle, though this is not a usual pack in that regard. There should, of course, be exceptions allowed where it makes sense - as is the case with bundles. But in 99% of cases the rules outlined above are fine. And whilst I agree consistency does not equate to efficiency, theres nothing particularly wrong with the folder structure they are requesting IMO - so unless they are going to ask all prior assets to be changed and enforce it (which, being pragmatic here, is not happening) then I would vote for consistency over efficiency in this particular case.
Good job inserting words where there are none. I didn’t say communication shouldn’t improve - of course it should. Communication from Epic has been absolutely awful. And using the words “current standard” also does not imply that it is a universal standard, or that it’s standard outside of the UE4 marketplace, but it is “a standard” that is currently being used with assets in the marketplace. I also didn’t say Epic’s content meets that standard, but Epic also don’t sell that content on the marketplace. I agree that their content should match the requirements of the marketplace, no arguments there - but its clear that they do not feel that way for one reason or another. Their content ALSO doesn’t meet any sort of consistent system. There are heaps of different naming conventions, file structures, etc. at play in different learning/example content provided by Epic. So not really sure what the point of bringing that into the discussion is as it actually doesn’t aid either of our side of this debate.
My point was that in the interest of consistency, we should be sticking to a consistent standard where it is not required to break it (as is the case with the bundles, which provide a legitimate reason why that structure may be more beneficial to the end user over consistency). At this point, the sheer number of assets that do match the outlined structure is a huge point in favor of maintaining it.