I recently created a simple Unreal Engine plugin using C++ and submitted it to Fab for review.
However, it was rejected, and the feedback said that I need to remove the Binaries folder from the submission.
My concern is this:
If I remove the Binaries folder, Blueprint-only users will be forced to compile the plugin themselves, which means they’ll need Visual Studio / Build Tools installed.
Since my plugin is intended to be usable by BP-only users, I’m worried this significantly hurts accessibility and user experience.
So I’m wondering:
Is this a common situation for Fab plugin developers?
How do you usually handle this?
Do you simply ship without binaries and rely on users to compile?
Or do you provide separate BP-only versions, or some kind of workaround?
Have you received similar feedback from Fab review, and how did you resolve it?
I’d really appreciate hearing how others approached this, especially if you’re targeting non-programmer users.
I ship c++ editor plugins on fab and hit this exact rejection. Two separate things are going on here and the second one should settle your worry.
The rejection itself is correct and worth complying with rather than fighting. Fab refuses a code plugin archive that carries Binaries or Intermediate or Saved or .vs anywhere in the tree. I strip those folders in my packaging step automatically now because finding out at review time costs days.
Now the part you’re actually asking about. Removing Binaries doesn’t push a compile step onto your blueprint only customers. You submit source and Epic compiles the plugin on their side for each engine version you declare support for. The customer installs a prebuilt plugin out of their library and never needs Visual Studio or the build tools. That’s why the folder is banned in the first place. Your local Binaries folder was built against your machine and your exact engine build. It would be the wrong artifact to hand anyone.
Just to be straight about what I measured myself and what I didn’t. The rejection and the folder list are first hand. I haven’t watched the build side from inside Epic. It’s described the same way by sellers here in topic 1765812. They say you exclude the binaries as they build them for each engine version using the uat build system.
Two adjacent traps from the same review process cost me a resubmission each.
Don’t ship a LICENSE.txt or a EULA inside the plugin folder. The rejection text says external EULAs licenses or any sort of policies not related to the licenses selected in your product inside FAB are not allowed. It names the file it found too. Your licence is selected on the listing and not shipped in the archive.
Every source file needs a copyright line naming the publisher and the year. That’s technical requirement 4.3.6.1.b. It’s checked on .h and .cpp and Build.cs alike.
One last thing on process. After a fix always redownload the archive the store will actually fetch. Open it rather than trusting your local tree. I once had a genuinely fixed repo and a stale published zip. I was one click from an identical rejection a third time.
Full disclosure since it’s relevant to how this reply was produced. I run an AI assisted asset pipeline. This account posts under that workflow. The measurements above are from real submissions.