Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free 3D Animation DAZ|Studio 1.0 Released

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the another-in-a-long-list-of-tools-i-need-to-play-with dept.

Thyme3333 writes "DAZ Productions, Inc. has officially released DAZ|Studio 1.0, a free 3D figure posing and animation software package. DAZ has a made a commitment to keep the DAZ|Studio core application free to the public for as long as possible by relying on the revenues generated by the purchase of content available in the DAZ online store. To obtain a free copy of DAZ|Studio, users must register for a free account on the DAZ website and agree to participate in the company's aptly-named "Tell-Ware" program, which asks that each DAZ|Studio user share information about DAZ|Studio and/or the DAZ website with at least two friends." Good to see that more companies are trying to keep their software free, but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?

17 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. ::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by XorNand · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Good to see that more companies are trying to keep their software free, but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?
    Yeah, a pretty accepted software business model is:
    1) Create software that people want
    2) Trade that software for money.

    An alternative buisness model is:
    1) Help foster a community of developers to create software that people want
    2) Connect potential buyers to that product and help them use it
    3)Ask said people for money in return.

    Maybe it's because I run my own business or maybe it's because I studied economics in school, but I tend to look at things a bit different than most other Slashdotters. You've all be spoiled by the easy access to pirated software, music and movies. In the real world, things cost producers both time and money to make. The reason why we all don't have to grow our own food, knit our own sweaters, or write our own code is because we've worked out a neat little system of exchange called "currency". It's just like the barter system, but a lot easier because currency is universally accepted. You don't have to worry about trying to locate someone who's willing to give you potatoes in exchange for your ability to configure sendmail. I only have a finite number of hours in my day, and a finite amount of resources. If I want to be able to eat, drive a car, and buy other people's software, I need to get someone in exchange for my skills. Elsewise I can't afford to give others something in return for their product/service.

    It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free." If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).
    --
    Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    1. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by hahiss · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Seems to me you offered a bit of economics and travel advice AND a business model---all for free.

      I guess it turns out that sometimes things in life can be free, because people decide that they can share some resources when, for example, they have excess and others can use them. You had excess wisdom and saw that others could use your insight---so you shared it.

      Sharing isn't really a difficult concept to understand either. . . .

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    2. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Maybe it's because I run my own business or maybe it's because I studied economics in school, but I tend to look at things a bit different than most other Slashdotters. You've all be spoiled by the easy access to pirated software, music and movies. In the real world, things cost producers both time and money to make. The reason why we all don't have to grow our own food, knit our own sweaters, or write our own code is because we've worked out a neat little system of exchange called "currency".

      And it's probably because you run your own business and studied economics that you're blinded to other nonstandard possibilities.

      This doesn't even appear to be "Free Software" in the way most of us mean. I don't see the ability to download the source, no less under any sort of nonrestrictive license. However, that aside, because you seem to be talking about "real" Free Software, you're overlooking the two most obvious and tangible returns that we get from developing it: recognition, and the time of other developers.

      The first is obvious. The second is more valuable than money; you have the possibility of possibly hundreds or thousands of developers looking at your code, offering patches and extensions to it. Use your economics to translate that into dollars; how much would a staff of 100 developers cost to employ and keep happy? More than most people would ever make selling their code to anyone.

      People usually write stuff and release it because it was useful to them, and it might be useful to others, so they can benefit from the above returns. Once that happens, it becomes even more personally useful.

      Yes, if you're doing business, this might not work; then again, if your business isn't selling software, it very well might.

      It's just like the barter system, but a lot easier because currency is universally accepted. You don't have to worry about trying to locate someone who's willing to give you potatoes in exchange for your ability to configure sendmail. I only have a finite number of hours in my day, and a finite amount of resources. If I want to be able to eat, drive a car, and buy other people's software, I need to get someone in exchange for my skills. Elsewise I can't afford to give others something in return for their product/service.

      Ah, this is what many economists can't wrap their head around. Information is not a limited resource. It's artificially limited by various laws, but it's not a diminishing resource. It is not "used up". Thus the barter analogy fails: if two people exchange information, they end up with twice as much as they had to begin with.

      Time, however, is our most precious and limited resource; sometimes getting someone's time is more than you could afford if you were charged for it.

      It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free."

      Your point is wrong because you misunderstand. Some things are not free because they are limited and thus acquire value based on rarity. Other things are not limited. Information isn't something that is suitable for building an economy on.

      If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

      Ah, the old "those damn commies!" standby. "Basic laws of economics" apply in a standard economy. It is conceivable that there is something nonstandard---possibly even something that is sustainable. However, one example of failure in this regard shouldn't be enough to dismiss everything (or you need a class in logic).

      Also, the idea of "basic laws" should be examined under the same light Shoenberg does with the "basic laws of music": there aren't any. Yes, we can listen to some terrible music by someone who has no concept of sound. This doesn't mean there is one set of rules we must follow for making music, however.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    3. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by dominion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

      You want to see what happens with a society that follows the basic laws of economics to the letter, look at Argentina. In fact, the over 800 factories that are being run by the employees after the owners and top management fled the country when the economy took a nose dive is about the only thing keeping the Argentine economy alive.

      One of the problems with people who pull out "economics" is that they assume that there is this one, monolithic concept of the economy that is etched in stone, and that success or failure depends on adherence to those set rules. Anybody who pays attention outside of their economics 101 class and looks at the rest of the world, and history itself, can see that there is no set definition of economics. There are only ideologies, and economies are formed around those ideologies, and success or failure can not be boiled down to one or two strawman arguments.

      A new ideology is spreading through the first world, and that ideology is based on the concept that anything that can be readily copied and distributed so cheaply it's almost free belongs to everybody. People trade movies, music, games, software, anything they want, and nobody ever feels a single bit guilty about it.

      And that lack of guilt is exactly why a new ideology is being formed around freely available digital content. The fact of the matter is that most people don't break into people's houses, not because they're afraid of getting caught, but because they know it's not right. Somebody who won't break into someone elses house and steal all their shit wouldn't do it whether there was 1 law against it or 100 laws, or none at all.

      But nobody ever looks at a link to an mp3 of their favorite artist and thinks "Oh, I don't know, this just doesn't feel right...". They think "Whoah, new song! *click*".

      Ideology comes first, and economics are formed around those ideologies. That is why the music industry is failing at stopping piracy: They have an economy based on an old ideology that they are trying to force the consumer who has adopted the new ideology to change back to the old ideology.

      The reality is that the only way to move forward is to adjust the economy to fit the new ideology. Everything else is like trying to push back a tidal wave with a tennis racket.

    4. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem simply is, how are you going to pay your bills? The power company, gas, garbage, water, landlords, mortgage company, bank/credit union, supermarket, etc. isn't going to be that impressed by your outstanding code/godlike intellectual property if you don't have currency to pay them. And it's a little hard to code when they shut the power off and evict you.

      I'm sure they aren't going to be too thrilled if you can hand them a dvd to save them downloading time for your free software.

      Bottom line, unless you are a lucky mooch who can rely on family/friends to pay your way for you, then you gotta have money to survive in America.

    5. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by oGMo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem simply is, how are you going to pay your bills?

      Charge for service. Charge for priority feature requests. Charge for documentation. Charge for things that are limited: time, paper, etc.

      No one is saying we should hand out source code instead of money. In fact, I believe I said something about information being an unlimited resource, so using it as currency wouldn't be too wise, would it?

      Nor is anyone saying we should do everything for free. We can still make money and survive in Corporate America. But we can also have Free Software and not be at odds with it.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    6. Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics... by slashdotnickname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The second is more valuable than money; you have the possibility of possibly hundreds or thousands of developers looking at your code, offering patches and extensions to it.

      This statement pretty much illustrates the fairy-taleish nature of the rest your post. Most projects are small and specific in function (compared to an OS or browser) that they don't generate such an large active development community. These projects mainly depend on a small group of dedicated coders, and good luck if you have an opinion about the direction of the project which the others don't share...

  2. What's wrong with their business model? by Namronorman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't find it wrong in any way. By registering, they know roughly how many people have downloaded it, which helps them remotely see the popularity of it. By telling two friends, it helps spread the word, which I don't see really being spam.

    Since when has word of mouth been considered spam?

    --
    $fortune
    Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
    1. Re:What's wrong with their business model? by mackil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is actually an excellent point. Reminds me of the old days of shareware when you could copy it a million times and put it anywhere for download. People soon learned which program worked and which didn't. There were always those who would just reinstall it once the trial ran out, but for your typical honest software user, it was a great way to find the best software tool for the job.

      For DAZ, their best chance for success lies in how good their product is. Word of mouth spreads good and bad. This is a clever idea because a piece of software with a community behind it always does better.

  3. 3D will be free by L.+VeGas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are quite a few low-end, inexpensive 3D animation packages. Ulead makes one for example. Aside from Blender, there are no truly free 3D packages at all. Truth is, no professional actually uses Blender. You'll see the occasional one-off logo or something like that, but even a serious hobbiest uses something like Lightwave or Max.

    There's been kind of a trickle-down in free software. First we got things everybody needs, like an email client. Then we got software that a lot of people need, like a word processor. Then we got the Gimp, which some people need. Eventually, we'll get the specialty applications, like 3D software. It's just a matter of time.

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
    1. Re:3D will be free by Sebastian+Jansson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      """
      Truth is, no professional actually uses Blender.
      """
      That's just simply false. Blender was initially made as a in-house software wich has been freed for use by anyone. It's still used professionally. Not so much for movies though, but then you probably have larger budgets anyway.

  4. SPAM?!? by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?

    It seems to me that this company is actually asking for a concious effort at the email equivalent of 'word of mouth'. I think that its an admirable idea and doesn't truly constitute SPAM except by a looser definition than I, personally, would accept.

  5. Cuba? I'd love to! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd love to visit Cuba. Best birdwatching on the planet, great food, friendly people, among other things.

    Unfortunately, my country's government will not allow me to visit Cuba, and would arrest & imprison me upon my return, and fine me $10,000 or more.

    Home of the Free.

  6. free as in beer by blechx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that this program is only free as in beer and is not Free Software. If you are looking for free as in speech 3d-modellers and renderers, look at http://blender3d.org/, an exellent and highly advanced program.

  7. Amazed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've said effectively the same thing on Slashdot many times and always get modded down and often trolled. Hard to get people to accept that software, movies and music don't come from the good fairy. The next big block buster film or game costs money to make. If you don't like the quality of the product don't buy it in the first place, supply and demand works. Simply downloading it to "strike back" at the maker is hypocritical. Saying all digital information should be free is rediculous and will result in a radical drop in availible product as well as a drop in quality. If all software should be free then all programers have to work for free.

  8. Re:blender = anurism by squidsoup · · Score: 3, Insightful

    blender was designed by and for schizophrenic space mutants. you are not alone.

  9. Re:Free as in "Years Behind." by LetterRip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can't open source the renderer because they don't own the source to it. Their interface is pretty weak and has very little functionality, they have nothing to really offer that could compete with Blender as far as '3d'.

    LetterRip