Messages in this topic - RSS

Home ? Competitions, Events & News ? To the community at large

pages: 1 2 3 | the topic is closed
17/03/2013 13:52:57

bigwallyMuvizu mogulExperimental user
bigwally
Posts: 400
fazz68 wrote:
i dunno about most people here but i dont have a pot to **** in, so if muvizu does charge for their software im afraid thats me done. its not that i wouldnt pay because i love messing about with muvizu but at the end of the day i just wouldnt be able to afford it.


I agree.
permalink
17/03/2013 20:45:15

mystoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
mysto
Posts: 471
Danimal wrote:
As the development seems to have been squarely on the heroes and villains pack lately rather than expanding the original and far better characters, charging a fee would probably do me in as well.


It seems most Muvizu users are happy with the "heroes and villains" direction that the developers have taken with the product and that's fine with me. Personally, I would like to see Muvizu develop in a slightly different direction too l but oh well, it's still a nice piece of animation software "as is".

If the new version of Muvizu offers usable features that the free version doesn't then I may consider paying a fee.
permalink
17/03/2013 21:22:07

WozToonsExperimental user
WozToons
Posts: 494
mysto wrote:
If the new version of Muvizu offers usable features that the free version doesn't then I may consider paying a fee.


As far as I could gather from the launch last night you will only pay if you want to remove the watermark on your renders.
permalink
17/03/2013 22:20:56

fullmetall
fullmetall
Posts: 164
WozToons wrote:
mysto wrote:
If the new version of Muvizu offers usable features that the free version doesn't then I may consider paying a fee.


As far as I could gather from the launch last night you will only pay if you want to remove the watermark on your renders.


also for me is it perfect, logo watermark is not a problem
permalink
17/03/2013 22:58:30

EEFilmzExperimental user
EEFilmz
Posts: 397
I'm hoping the new version will give me a deep tissue massage while creating...that I'd pay for lol
permalink
10/04/2013 17:48:47

mos6507
mos6507
Posts: 34
With software, people WILL pay into it (even a monthly subscription model) if they feel like the money is actively going into R&D and the software is evolving. However, they won't be paying $100-200 for Muvizu to pretty much remain as it is today just so the company doesn't shutter its doors. Muvizu doesn't have to phone-home on the internet to be used (with the watermark). If Muvizu goes out of business, people will be able to keep using it in perpetuity. The main reason end-users will want Muvizu to stay in business is to improve the product. I know that sounds harsh, but that's the the reality of it.
Software MUST improve and evolve. I don't deny the team have worked hard, but the improvements to Muvizu since inception have not been very dramatic as far as what it enables you to do with the software. The prop interaction, better facial expressions, 3rd party asset marketplace (with characters and animations), all these things are not outlandish requests. They are standard in other popular systems. The best way to compensate for not having enough R&D is to crack it open for 3rd party plugins and let that process snowball.
I actually am not aware of a single machinima project that has made a lot of money. I wish there were a central database that kept track of such things. Popularity, yes, many youtube clips have gone viral. But I have not heard of anybody breaking out and making an indie film with machinima that has generated a healthy return. I do think that day will come, but it will only happen when the machinima companies position themselves so that they offer a richer feature-set and don't overly restrict animators with EULAs and TOSs.
There is only one high-profile project in the works I know of, which is someone trying to do a feature-film using Source Filmmaker.
http://screenrant.com/shane-acker-valve-deep-movie-sandy-178699/
Technically speaking, Valve is hands-off people's projects as long they don't use Valve assets, and Deep is all custom-built assets. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Valve doesn't stand to make some money off of the supposed $19 million budget. I haven't heard news about this since then, so he may not even have a go-ahead. However, if you buy something like a seat for Maya, Autodesk doesn't hold their hand out to James Cameron for a percentage cut from Avatar. You offer a tool, and you charge a fixed amount of money, you process the transaction, and you get out of the way. That's how I think most people would prefer it to be.
I do think there are opportunities for machinima companies to find novel revenue streams besides the software, however. If your characters are highly distinctive, then you trademark them, and try to popularize them Hello Kitty or Mickey Mouse style. I haven't seen a lot of that attempted. Even the TF2 characters used in SFM haven't seen the sort of spinoffs that I would have expected. It's a missed opportunity. I think ultimately the most successful machinima company will be one that recognizes that prebuilt assets are exploitable intellectual property and the best way to exploit it is to crossover and be more of a direct content-provider.
permalink
14/04/2013 15:39:05

theKodu
theKodu
Posts: 25
my 2p on the matter / ideas

While I know I came loving the idea of Muvizu being free to use for everything I can see the reality as you essentially need someone to pay at some point for it and you can't simply sell your services as a company making videos out well enough to maintain this idea especially when others using your program essentially become your own competition this way.


creates some tiers for people.

Muvizu basic - Normal Muvizu as is with the watermark removal options and those costs
Free

Muvizu endorser - Muvizu as is now with the watermark removal options etc except commerical use is allowed. so you can make commercial videos but with the watermark still present
£80-£100
That way Muvizu is still getting credited, and getting essentially advertising from people using it and creating things however there's a clear commercial use allowance at a fairly fixed cost maybe possibly a slightly lighter watermark but that's all.


Muvizu Pro standard - No watermark on the standard definition output videos, one still on HD videos. Commercial use allowed with crediting muvizu in the credits
£150

Muvizu pro HD - No watermarks, only obligation is to credit Muvizu in the credits
£200

Muvizu super Pro - No need to credit Muvizu at all and no water marks at all
£500

Those would be more fixed cost sales models.
For recurrent stuff it would be more when Muvizu is seen as "content complete" then rather than small updates larger version updates say once a year but the costs lower say about 1/2 the ones I suggested


As far as the sharing of ideas and creations. I want to see that remain free, sorry I know it sounds bad and the idea of charging for content packs and stuff sounds good with people getting cuts, but it harms everyone in the community in the end. I'm more than happy to create a character texture and have others use it free in return I get to do the same. This means as a community we all get the chance to use creations and improve our videos etc not simply those who can buy the packs.

What it would need for me to give £100 now to say I have a commercial licence ?
Nothing If it were available I'd buy that right now. I mean £100 for essentially commercial use on the present version, bargain. I seemingly regularly buy video editors and that's what £40-£80 a year to keep up to date, £40 if I'm willing to stay about one year behind the present version.

The Watermark removal price could do with looking at I would say as more realistically £1 for SD and £2 for HD would have more people happy to pay it, heck even 10p for SD and 50p for HD per minute would probably still have plenty of people paying. Yes its less per minute of footage but the volume would be greater.
Look at Go-animate, they were raking it in at one point and probably still are. With a lower cost more people are willing to go for it.
Also the lower cost per minute would be more beneficial to start ups wanting to try it.
£10-£15 a minute is a very steep rate and really could only be affordable by those who've made it already by which stage they may have gone off to other packages or be more open to the idea of a commercial use contract.
permalink
14/04/2013 19:35:25

urbanlamb
urbanlamb
(Account inactive)
Posts: 1796
theKodu wrote:
my 2p on the matter / ideas


As far as the sharing of ideas and creations. I want to see that remain free, sorry I know it sounds bad and the idea of charging for content packs and stuff sounds good with people getting cuts, but it harms everyone in the community in the end. I'm more than happy to create a character texture and have others use it free in return I get to do the same. This means as a community we all get the chance to use creations and improve our videos etc not simply those who can buy the packs.

.


There is logic behind haveing commercial content and its this.

I only put in the asset gallery simple assets because like with muvizu my time costs money. At the moment assets in muvizu are extremely limited. Anyone creating anything complex in muvizu is already in some cases purchasing content from places like renderosity and daz and even iclone and importing it into muvizu. So muvizu is in fact throwing away a market and giving it to those other companies. There are a couple of us that actually make money on content (but elsewhere so we are already selling our content and people purchase it for use inside muvizu or something else). So that market already exists muvizu should capitalize on it. Not to mention I would be able to release content I already create with a pricetag directly on muvizu and it would be optimized and converted and people would not have to muddle through optimizing and converting it from another format. I actually dont want to be seen as a content creator on this site I am a director, but unfortunately its happened anyhow.

Asking content creators to give all their content away for free is just as bad as asking muvizu to take the watermark and give their software away for free.
permalink
14/04/2013 20:49:46

theKodu
theKodu
Posts: 25
urbanlamb wrote:


There is logic behind haveing commercial content and its this.

I only put in the asset gallery simple assets because like with muvizu my time costs money. At the moment assets in muvizu are extremely limited. Anyone creating anything complex in muvizu is already in some cases purchasing content from places like renderosity and daz and even iclone and importing it into muvizu. So muvizu is in fact throwing away a market and giving it to those other companies. There are a couple of us that actually make money on content (but elsewhere so we are already selling our content and people purchase it for use inside muvizu or something else). So that market already exists muvizu should capitalize on it. Not to mention I would be able to release content I already create with a pricetag directly on muvizu and it would be optimized and converted and people would not have to muddle through optimizing and converting it from another format. I actually dont want to be seen as a content creator on this site I am a director, but unfortunately its happened anyhow.

Asking content creators to give all their content away for free is just as bad as asking muvizu to take the watermark and give their software away for free.



My take on it is this with the stuff I've done mostly.

I made this due to being part of a video. I've already made that content as such and sometimes I really did just do it as a one off thing because I needed it. Its my video that's the product and often the texture files models etc are by products of it.

I have no use for some of them.
Other people might have use for them though hence I'm happy to see it put to use more.
However if all the packs were being charged for, I'd feel I'd have to charge too just to make sure I can then invest in the extra packs as such.
The idea for me of charging for something that's normally a throw away by product of my stuff while financially it sounds good, I just don't feel I should charge as its no use to me why not let someone else use it as a resource now.

The thing I question is if its the right direction to go to allow people to charge for their produced content in such a way as will Muvizu become less about making films and more like a Team Fortress 2 hat store.

As you've said there are already other ways to monetise content produced this way.
I'd rather see a fixed cost as such for the program for commercial use than it suddenly allow commercial use and all the content be sold in packs.


I guess it comes down to the question mainly of what Muvizu is or should be commercially. Is it a video creation tool or a sales library for 3D objects ?
permalink
pages: 1 2 3 | the topic is closed

Home ? Competitions, Events & News ? To the community at large