What is iContent and how does it benefit developers? (June 25, 2025)

Content Developer General Discussion
1

What is iContent and how does it benefit developers? (June 25, 2025)

iContent is a proprietary file format developed by Reallusion for exclusive use in iClone and Character Creator. It is available only through Smart Search within these applications—not via the Marketplace or Content Store (see iContent FAQ for details).

Based on the impact of AI development on the 3D market industry, Reallusion is committed to introducing various tools that use AI technology to strengthen and accelerate the development of 3D character and animation production. In addition to AI-assisted tool development, we are also adjusting our Content Business strategy. We are very concerned about the revenue of our content developers. Therefore, we have also introduced the Smart AI Search features in iClone, Character Creator and Cartoon Animator, with the goal of allowing users to find and try out the content they need directly in the applications, thereby increasing the exposure and sales of developer assets. In addition to In-AP instant purchase content, iContent has also been relaunched in the latest Smart Search version. iContent is priced at only 30% of the Standard License, providing users with a cost-effective option. We hope to provide users with the following benefits, thereby increasing developer revenue:

  • Affordability: Build a large library of high-quality assets at a significantly lower cost.
  • Render-Ready: Perfect for creating images and videos directly within iClone and Character Creator.
  • Flexible Upgrade: Easily upgrade to a Standard License by paying only the price difference, enabling export to third-party software whenever needed.

We are confident that with this strategic adjustment, we can provide users with a better content experience and bring revenue growth to our content developers. Thank you for your support.

3

While I appreciate Reallusion’s continued efforts to expand discoverability tools and streamline access to content through Smart Search, I’d like to raise a few concerns about the iContent relaunch that I hope can be clarified.

As a small studio, we put tremendous time and care into building high-quality content that reflects not just functionality, but also our brand, identity, and value. With the new iContent format being priced at only 30% of the Standard License, and presented entirely within Smart Search, I’m concerned about two key areas:

  1. Brand Detachment & Developer Visibility
    When assets are purchased through Smart Search as iContent, is there any way for the user to know who created the asset, or visit that creator’s storefront in app to explore more? For those of us building a recognizable studio identity, that connection is crucial to sustainable growth.

  2. Revenue Model & Market Conditioning
    While iContent is positioned as a path to greater developer revenue, the reality is that this format undercuts Standard License pricing by default. With current Marketplace-wide 30% discounts already in place, and now an in-app system where users can buy content for 70% less, how do we ensure that developer earnings aren’t being quietly devalued over time?

I’m not against innovation or Smart Search, but I do believe developers deserve to fully understand how their work is being used, presented, and priced.

Can we expect clearer visibility controls, opt-in/opt-out features, or attribution systems in future updates?

Thank you for taking the time to consider this feedback, I’m sharing it because I care deeply about the long-term success of this platform and the creators who help shape it.

  • Embody Studios
4

Hi…

Thank you for the feedback. I will pass this on to the content team.

To find the creator of any content, you can right click any thumbnail when running a deep search and choose to visit the product page. Also on the product page can see the name of the creator and a link to contact them if you wish.

5

Thank you, Pete, for the response.

I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge the post and pass it on to the content team.

That said, I’d like to respectfully clarify that my original comment wasn’t about how to locate a creator’s name or storefront after finding a product, it was about how developer visibility is impacted by the shift to in-app iContent purchases at heavily reduced prices.

My concerns remain focused on:

1. Consent & Pricing Control
Currently, developers have no way to opt in or out of having their assets redistributed as iContent under Smart Search. With a default price of just 30% of the Standard License, this significantly changes the context in which our content is purchased, and directly affects revenue without clear permission or visibility.

2. Long-Term Revenue Impact
Positioning iContent as a way to help developers earn more is understandable in theory, but what happens if this pricing model reduces Marketplace sales overall? Will developers have access to data about that impact? Is there a plan to reevaluate the model if it leads to devaluation of Standard Licenses?

3. Brand Connection
For small studios, every interaction matters. When a user purchases iContent through Smart Search, they often don’t engage with the creator’s storefront, other products, or branding. That weakens the developer ecosystem and risks turning us into background providers rather than visible creators.

I want to stress that I genuinely appreciate the tools Reallusion has provided. This isn’t an attack, it’s a request for transparency and long-term fairness. We’re building our studios alongside your platform, and I think it’s fair to ask for open dialogue as new monetization systems are introduced.

Thank you again for listening.

— Embody Studios

1 Like
6

Thank you for explaining more. I will certainly pass on your feedback and concerns to the content/developer teams to review. If there is anything they wish me to pass on then I will do so by updating this thread.

7

Update From The Content Team:

In the Smart Search results, whether by item or by pack, you can right-click on the thumbnail to view the content info and its product page on the web. This will reveal the author’s name and the assets they offer in our stores.

According to our statistics, approximately 30% of our users work entirely within the Reallusion ecosystem. The new iContent License provides an affordable and focused alternative. Priced at just 30% of the Standard License, it is an ideal solution for internal production, in-software rendering, education, and concept development. The iContent License was available prior to the release of iClone 8, and we would like to bring back this budget-friendly option to benefit users who do not require cross-platform deployment. Currently, iContent can only be purchased through the in-software Smart Search, which is also our strategy to minimize revenue impact.

In the sales reports we provide to developers, it is shown whether users purchased a Standard License or an iContent License. This can help you understand the sales ratio between the two license types for your assets.

As the digital content market becomes more saturated and AI-generated content continues to have an impact, we must adopt more flexible content licensing strategies to maintain our market competitiveness. We sincerely hope developers will have confidence in and support our content policies."

8

I don’t know if the content team ever saw this topic here, but some content creators definitely feel that their work is highly undervalued by selling it with a 70% discount:

https://discussions.reallusion.com/t/icontent-severely-undervalues-creator-work/

1 Like
9

Thank you for the response. However, I’m compelled to be direct in my position on this. This clarification, while appreciated, confirms many of the concerns content developers like myself have been raising since this announcement.

1. “We are very concerned about the revenue of our content developers.”

This was the headline promise, but nowhere that I could see in your follow-up was that concern demonstrated in practice. In fact, what’s clear now to me is:

  • We cannot opt out of having our content sold at 30% of its value.
  • This model was implemented without creator consent or direct communication.
  • And rather than empowering creators, it conditions the user base to seek deeply discounted assets with no visibility of the original studio’s full offerings.

If developer revenue was truly the core concern, we would be given agency, not just a backend sales report to watch our diminished earnings.

2. Visibility and Attribution

Yes, users can right-click to see a creator’s name buried in Smart Search, but this is not the same as storefront visibility. For developers trying to build a recognizable brand or grow an audience, this system detaches our work from the context and identity we’ve worked hard to establish.

3. Internal Use ≠ Justification for Devaluation

While I get that 30% of users remain entirely within the Reallusion ecosystem, this does not justify across-the-board price undercutting. Render-only use still requires high-quality, labor-intensive assets. A character preset, pose, or clothing item doesn’t magically cost less to create just because the user won’t export it.

4. “Only available through Smart Search” is not a solution

Positioning iContent behind Smart Search may appear to “minimize impact,” but the reality is, users are quickly learning that they can get the same assets for a fraction of the price, inside a tool they already use in many cases daily.

This is not invisible, it may just quietly shift customer behavior away from Marketplace purchases, and devs have no say in that shift.

What We Need

  • A simple opt-out toggle for iContent sales. Let creators decide per asset if they want to participate in this licensing model.
  • Transparent analytics on how iContent is performing relative to Standard License content, so we can make informed decisions.
  • A commitment to preserving the value of developer work, not just chasing volume or retention through aggressive underpricing.

I’m not against innovation. I’m not against Smart Search. But I am against a system that silently undermines the value of creative labor, without permission, and calls it a benefit.

If this is the new model, then let us choose to participate. Anything less undermines the foundation of trust that developer ecosystems are built on.

1 Like
10

While, I see your point, there is another side of the coin, which you may or may not be aware of. iContent is not a new concept, it existed before the other license options. By taking away the iContent license, we as users were suddenly confronted with a price hike.

3 Likes
11

I appreciate your response, and I fully understand that iContent isn’t a new concept. I’m not advocating for its removal. The issue isn’t that iContent exists, it’s how it was reintroduced and implemented.

Reallusion stated that the return of iContent was to benefit the revenue of the developers who keep the Marketplace thriving. But instead of empowering creators, it undercuts their pricing by 70%, with no ability to opt out or set visibility preferences. For developers, many of whom spend weeks or months crafting high-quality content, this can feel like a loss of control over our work and income.

You mention price hikes for users when iContent was removed previously, and I understand that concern. But imagine you’re a creator: your asset, which may have taken 40+ hours to build, is sold for 30% of its value, and Reallusion still takes their cut at the end of the day.

And here’s the thing, over time this model conditions the user base to expect deeply discounted content, which weakens the sustainability of the Marketplace as a whole.

All I’m asking for is choice. Let creators decide whether their products appear in Smart Search at discounted iContent rates. That would honor both the user base and the developer community.

12

I feel iContent will create more sales since you are getting money from people who will never buy high grade license anyways.

It will enable to create POC quickly and buy a high grade license later for serious users.
And with AI in the mix it could be game of mass selling.

It looks net positive.
This is my theory.

P.S. I only buy Extended licences but I buy very less content and look for max deals due to price concerns.

PPS. Not being on iContent for some content is less sales and less exposure.

All the best creators.

13

At this point, I’ve shared my thoughts in full.
I’ve raised these concerns not to attack users or innovation, but to advocate for creator choice, fair valuation, and studio visibility.

If Reallusion’s direction is to condition the platform and userbase toward undervalued mass selling without opt-in consent, then so be it, but it’s important to me that I’ve made my stance clear as a developer.

This will be my final word on the matter. Thank you to those who took the time to read and consider.

1 Like
14

As a person who creates my own content and renders in Blender, I have no stake in this.
However it would seem that Reallusion is trying to appeal to its core user base that prefers to stay within Iclone and have no need for “export” versions of Icontent.
Notice how there is now a content storefront built into most of the RL software even the FREE Accurig 2.

The cost of entry into the Reallusion ecosystem ,(compared to UE5 or Daz), is quite high for many people so perhaps RL wants give them an incentive to buy their content here at lower prices.

As for the Reallusion vendors yes it a tough market so you might have to consider diversifying your product portfolios
and consider other ecosystems.

I have made a tidy sum selling animation products for the Daz figures over at
and I am about to start selling Blender Native Anime style Characters ,
(rigged for animation) over there as well.

15

30% is way too low and undervalues the content greatly. It should be more like 70%, where Standard license is 1.5 of iContent - the way it used to be when we had iContent\Export back in a day.

1 Like