Well, I pay for three C4D licenses and still am mostly on my own. Again, if you are a large scale customer, you get dedicated support (which costs money). As an individual, you are lucky if you hear back from customer support within a couple of days.
Of course. The question is, how many iClone users fall into that “professional level” category, and can RL sustain their business with just these? I’d be very surprised to learn that RL had many business customers with, say 30 or more iClone licenses each and a professional support person at their beck and call. It’s been my impression that most iClone users are hobbyists, with a few freelancers and game developers thrown in.
Anyway, as I said, this is what works for me (and probably many freelancers and hobbyists). Companies have different requirements and budgets for stuff like that.
My point is that a dedicated hobbyist or freelancer with free software can create a model of comparable quality as one created by a “professional” enjoying dedicated customer support and the use of multi-thousand dollar software and, in a free market, both may compete for the same customer, but the “professional” or their employer cannot offer the model at the same price as the hobbyist/freelancer and still cover their costs. In most other industries the barrier to entry for competitors are singnificantly higher than in the 3D asset market.
OK, how many Blender users know about Daz and this amazing plugin for Blender? Is that like common knowledge in the Blender community?
The most popular Blender site where I hangout knows about Daz and even poser
You consider it rational to pick the best tools for the job (especially when they are free or low-cost), even if it means leaving your main application and learning a new tool. However, not everybody thinks like that
To their great detriment IMHO .
But I also like to be intellectually & creatively challenged to solve problems(and I am in my early 60’s and studies say such problem s olving brain activity can prevent alzheimers)
Also sometimes stepping out of your comfort bubble ,out of shear curiosity, can lead to some great “Discoveries”
For example in my search for better
NPR toon style rendering I not only discovered the free VROID character creation software but learned that Blender has a free addon to import them from VROID
And My auto rig pro addon has a preset to one click convert the VROID character to ARP rigged Blender Characters while keeping their facial morphs for facial animation
And the VROID ecosystem has some amazing free facial and body camera tracking tools for “live streaming” and recording that are just as good as the expensive live camera tracking options for Iclone
Really appreciate you adding your voice to this issue, Adam. I raised similar concerns in the original iContent policy thread about a week ago, and while I framed my issues formally, the heart of it was the same:
We’ve been handed a pricing model that affects our income and visibility, without consent, without transparency, and without tools to opt out or manage the impact. I’ve been going back and forth with Reallusion on a multitude of issues and they just keep “sending it up”, which leaves us who create content in the dark.
And I fully agree, this isn’t sustainable if developers are expected to put in professional-grade effort for impulse-level pricing.
I still believe Reallusion could be a powerful and creator-aligned platform. But that requires collaboration, not control.
If anyone else feels the same, speak up. We may not all express it the same way, but we’re all in the same boat.
A Broader Look at the iContent System (Developer Impact Overview)
After speaking with others and reviewing what’s been shared so far, I wanted to compile some of the deeper concerns around the new iContent pricing and distribution model. There are multiple overlapping issues here that impact content creators, especially independent and small-studio developers, and I believe it’s important that we lay them out clearly.
Pricing Devaluation Without Consent
Assets priced through iContent are automatically set to 30% of the Standard License.
This results in full visual and functional use within the Reallusion ecosystem for a fraction of the price.
Developers are not asked for permission, nor given the ability to opt out. This devalues our work by default.
“If I wanted to sell my work for $5, I’d be on Gumroad.” – @sunlikevoid
No Visibility Controls or Branding Protection
Smart Search does not make creator or brand identity prominent.
Developers lose the ability to build brand loyalty or associate users with their storefront when sales happen through in-app Smart Search.
Users may not even realize the content comes from a third-party creator/studio.
No Public Metrics or Reporting
The change was introduced under the claim: “We are very concerned about the revenue of our content developers.”
However, no performance data, earnings breakdowns, or community feedback results were shared.
Without metrics, we can’t evaluate whether this is actually helping developers, or simply driving in-app purchases at lower margins.
4. This Is About Control, Not Collaboration
While Smart Search has potential, the way it’s being used here feels less like a tool for creators and more like a retention system for users.
It builds convenience, but at the cost of:
creator agency
asset value
long-term sustainability
What I Propose
I don’t want to tear the system down, I want it to respect the people building it.
I ask Reallusion to consider:
Giving developers opt-in/opt-out control for iContent distribution (per product).
Publishing data or performance metrics on how iContent is actually affecting developer income.
Giving Smart Search users clear attribution and links to the original developer’s storefront.
Creating a formal review period for this model with open developer feedback.
If you’re a creator and feel any of this hits home, speak up.
There’s room here for many voices, even if we come at it differently.
But silence will only make this the new normal.