TLDR; Asset's extended license costs makes video games prohibitive and on top of that they require a lot of work to make them game ready assets.

Hello fellow poser users.

I was thinking about signing up to prime and buying a few assets but then I noticed the different licensing... Oooof!

Poser has been a pretty good and useful tool in game development from at least poser gamedev edition and even if it's not explicitly now a gamedev tool, poser is still getting gamedev related features, ie GLFT file export support.

And that's great, but my issue is the licensing of assets, and how it separates video and interactive media, and for some reason interactive has to be more expensive. I think this model is redundant if at all ever relevant.

If you look at other gamedev related asset sites, you'll see the different license approaches, ie single person use or company wide use, single project use or multiple project use, no NFT use etc etc. However they are priced more reasonably because maybe they know what they are selling and how it would be used in a game development workflow. The more expensive ones besides being higher detail also take into account gamedev related things like LODs (level of details), collision mesh and model topology, all stuff to a certain point should be done.

That's not to say the Poser/video assets aren't useful, they can be used as a base and then LODs, collision and retoplogy can be done, but realistically that wouldn't happen because that work is often more intensive than creating the model correctly ("game ready") in the first place.

However, there's a term in video games call "asset flip", its mostly negative and applies to game engine game example's being repackaged as games, but the term still applies to model assets and it implies that they have just been "dragged and dropped" often with no LODs, bad topology and with no or very little collision meshing. This doesn't mean that store bought assets are bad, but you get what you pay for.

These are the cheapest broken games on steam or itch that nobody cares about unless someone is doing a youtube video about janky broken games for lols.... so really the use of poser assets in games is really bottom barrel stuff, but that's not to say it's completely without any merit.... but the chance of doing any of this for financial gain or breaking even is more of a pipe dream and well the extra licensing cost is just prohibitive from the start.

If it were up to me, I would have a single license and if it's used interactively, then require the original artist credit, but then why not credit them in video works also?

Anyway, I know licensing is a major issue, so I'm not holding my breath for anything to change, so I'll just rant and move on....

I know I can use poser with external assets, and that's fine, so I'll just do that.

It's just a shame and IMO unnecessary road block, because hobbyist game dev's could definitely be here, using poser and buying assets.

Thanks for ready.

Ben.

Just in case there's someone else interested in poser and poser's content that comes with the poser app for gamedev.

Poser's content packs with no individual license fall under Poser EULA, see "CONTENT LICENSE"

https://www.posersoftware.com/documentation/13 or 14

Which permits the export of content for game engines.

However, you have to check each individual asset before you install, because some content zip files have individual licenses ie stating "standard license", which is upheld for that specific pack and can't be used in a game engine.

Some assets have this license: http://hivewire3d.com/eula/ which doesn't exist??

This is my understanding anyway and I'm not a lawyer.

I guess you seriously expect your Poser customers to do this? or just use content how ever they like?

This is the licensing for Poser 13 content packs, empty is Poser EULA.

Cartoon Characters

Core Content

Humans-Other

Non-Human

P01-P04_LegacyContent

P05-Don_Judy_Will_Penny

P06-James, Jessi, Ben and Kate

P07-SydneyG2_SimonG2_Ben2_Kate2

P08-P09-Alyson and Ryan 1 and 2

P10-Rex and Roxie

P13 Bonus Materials

P13 HW Baby Luna...................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW Big Dog.................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW Dawn...................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW Dusk...................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW Dusk-Gorilla.................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW Horse ...................HiveWire 3D

P13 HW House Cat...................HiveWire 3D

P13 La Femme 1 of 2.......................STANDARD LICENSE

P13 La Femme 2 of 2

P13 LHomme........................STANDARD LICENSE

P13 LHomme2 Lite.......................STANDARD LICENSE

P13 LaFemme2 Lite......................STANDARD LICENSE

P13 Maisie

P13 Miki4

P13 Paul and Paul2

P13 Pauline and Pauline2

P13 Scenery-Props 1 of 3

P13 Scenery-Props 2 of 3

P13 Scenery-Props 3 of 3

P13 Scenery-Props Bonus................STANDARD LICENSE

Just in case you didn't notice, but the Standard license being 2D rendering or video use ONLY, means you can't upload that content in (whole or part) to the renderosity store....  and the old HiveWire 3D was similar looking at way back machine.

So human assets even with the Extended license seems like it would be prohibited from being uploaded to the renderosity store??

Except for where specifically allowed in Part 3d (game engine use) above, the Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, or in any file format, for sale or for free. The Buyer will not use Products as a starting point to create a new Product.

It's hard to believe you guys take licensing seriously when your licensing is like this but maybe it's a "just me" thing :/

I was considering buying the new model setup for game dev......

https://www.renderosity.com/marketplace/products/165884/lhomme-2-pro

It's a standard license, but with a special "Merchant" rights.

"While the base mesh is not a merchant resource, everything included in the DEV rigs is, from mesh to UV mapping to rigging to morphs."

So you don't make merchants pay for the extra license charge, but you still expect game dev's to??? oh wait it's not even offered!!

Well I'm starting to get the picture :/

So to use Poser for game dev legally (to my understanding anyway) you would have to:

1) create your model in setup room

2) sell your model on the renderosity store with the extra license.

3) buy your model with the extra license

4) profit 

This is a funny joke right?

I am trying to figure out why you think you should be able to resell someone elses work?

Why would you be able to upload anyone elses models or figures to the store?

As to game-dev licenses, those here at Renderosity are about on par with those elsewhere in other game-dev websites.  Some vendors do have much higher extended license fees.  This is if you are using those assets in some form of 3D in the game and not just generating sprites and clips.  Often times Game Dev specific products include some format compatible with Collada, FBX, Unity, or unreal.  You are paying to save time making assets from scratch, and for use as 3D interactive assets it involves redistributing some form of the mesh and textures.  Not all vendors want this which is why not all content has the option.  

The alternative if unable to make your own assets for whatever reason  is to hire creators to work directly for you to make assets.  Then you need to either negotiate a per-asset rate or an hourly rate.

Hi thanks for your reply.

"I am trying to figure out why you think you should be able to resell someone elses work?"

Do you mean my previous post? it was specifically about the l'homme-2-pro models and how merchants can export models but to my understanding gamedev's can not... because EULA and licensing, and that nonsense work-around was a way of using my newly created models based on l'homme 2 pro in a game :/

The process of Game development and video game as a media is very transformative, in fact I would argue it's more so than just video or images are (the conversion and manipulation process, then how it's rendered and interacted etc ), so no, it's not "reselling artists work", if that's what you meant.

"Often times Game Dev specific products include some format compatible with Collada, FBX, Unity, or unreal."

You are welcome to believe that, but the format is not the issue (we all use Poser, setup and animate in that right?), the extra license is a gamedev privilege tax and that's all you get, read my OP rant.

I can link you game 3D assets to other stores which are (to some degree) game ready (I don't mean in engine format) for the same as the standard license, so why would gamedev's waste their time and money with the extra license or even poser for that matter?

Poser EULA and included content is mostly anti gamedev and the store is anti gamedev by charging extra for the in game privilege.

Obviously artist can control their own licensing, but you are on a store for a 3D application, I would have thought all the content would be to the benefit of all that use it right?

IMHO, Poser is making it's own community smaller by licensing restrictions, not the actual Poser program or store.

You could have made the argument gamedev 3D tools and assets are expensive, sure 20+ years ago but not today.

Poser could easily have a gamedev community, and the games would mostly be janky garbage asset flips, but that's still participation in Poser and the ecosystem.

If you get paid a standard price, why would artist care if their assets end up in a pron video, game or NFT etc? Because GameDev's can put stuff on a store and monotize it? isn't that really petty? I mean videos are also monotized... and NTF is just pure monotization.

And you know a lot of gamedev's are just hobbyist right?, as in there's no monetization interest, you still going to insist on a gamedev tax for a hobbyist? come on now lol

Anyway, thanks again for reading.

Ben.

KageRyu posted at 4:33 PM Sun, 5 April 2026 - #4504997

I am trying to figure out why you think you should be able to resell someone elses work?

Why would you be able to upload anyone elses models or figures to the store?

As to game-dev licenses, those here at Renderosity are about on par with those elsewhere in other game-dev websites.  Some vendors do have much higher extended license fees.  This is if you are using those assets in some form of 3D in the game and not just generating sprites and clips.  Often times Game Dev specific products include some format compatible with Collada, FBX, Unity, or unreal.  You are paying to save time making assets from scratch, and for use as 3D interactive assets it involves redistributing some form of the mesh and textures.  Not all vendors want this which is why not all content has the option.  

The alternative if unable to make your own assets for whatever reason  is to hire creators to work directly for you to make assets.  Then you need to either negotiate a per-asset rate or an hourly rate.

I read your opening rant. I read all of your posts before responding. You are wrong on many points, and woefully misguided on others.

Regardless of how "transformative" youre work is, when you are building upon someone elses work you are STILL using someone elses work.  Not all Poser content creators want that.  This is something you can not seem to understand.

As to costs of Game dev tools, no it is not just true "20 years ago" it is still true today.

From the tone off all of your messages my advice is you would be better served using assets specificly created and marketed for Game Dev available at Specific Game Dev communities (the better ones are still going to cost).  

It is not "Petty" to not want others monitizing your work.

I willo not be interacting with you further.

Hello again,

Wrong or misguided on what exactly? Topology, LOD's and collision are important in game development, But I'm not hating on content that's made for video/images, that's fine but my point is the extra license is a "privilege tax" and not a practical thing as it relates to gamedev. 

"Regardless of how "transformative" youre work is, when you are building upon someone elses work you are STILL using someone elses work.  Not all Poser content creators want that.  This is something you can not seem to understand."

I totally understand that, but my point is why be okay with some form of monetization or "reselling others work" (video & images),  demand a premium on an other (interactive media) or not allow it at all (modding existing games)? It seems unnecessarily contrived and unfair to me when we're all creating transformative works and using the same application and store.

I mean there's better ways of doing Poser's and store licensing that benefits everyone equally.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I really think merchants would make more money if Poser and the store are growing and more people buying content, instead of losing people because of antiquated licensing IMO.

For better or worse we live in a blender, Unreal Engine and AI world now and the divide will only get bigger with friction like this kind of licensing.

As a gamedev, I found the Poser EULA very difficult to understand, the individual content pack licensing a huge PITA and the store's extra license mostly prohibitive.

My legal understanding is that gamedev's are stuck back in 2014 gamedev edition with Poser manikins and content packs, but why??? seriously?

Poser is still mention around gamedev circles, ie: https://youtu.be/S29iPRPueGI?t=168 but I doubt most understand the licensing terms, because if they did, why bother?

Thanks again for the reply.

Ben.

KageRyu posted at 7:40 PM Mon, 6 April 2026 - #4505057

I read your opening rant. I read all of your posts before responding. You are wrong on many points, and woefully misguided on others.

Regardless of how "transformative" youre work is, when you are building upon someone elses work you are STILL using someone elses work.  Not all Poser content creators want that.  This is something you can not seem to understand.

As to costs of Game dev tools, no it is not just true "20 years ago" it is still true today.

From the tone off all of your messages my advice is you would be better served using assets specificly created and marketed for Game Dev available at Specific Game Dev communities (the better ones are still going to cost).  

It is not "Petty" to not want others monitizing your work.

I willo not be interacting with you further.

Where there doesn't appear to be a suggestion in this, I'm moving it to the breakroom, where it will fit better. 

Your premise/rant is narrow minded, self centered and flawed, you're missing the biggest issue - just because YOUR games don't make money, doesn't mean EVERYONE's games fail to make money, and that's why the extended licensing options [need to] exist.

You're doing it as a hobbyist and asset costs add up, that's unfortunate. If you want to decrease your hobby related costs, you learn to do more things yourself/"wear many hats", that's the way "hobbies" have always been. Many of the content creators here are doing it as a hobby/side gig too. The assets for sale here are at minuscule fractions of the cost of the work they took to create - even with an extended license, you're still paying far below the actual production cost. There are some "free for non-commercial use" assets and tools out there, you could always look into those avenues, but you'd have to abide by the license which means there likely would be NO means for you to see even a partial return financially on your game.

If you don't have extended licenses then a studio producing games can effectively scoop up assets for fractional costs to use in their games. Even if, as you say, many of the assets aren't entirely game ready, it wouldn't take much work - a fraction of the work it would to create assets from scratch. That hurts both the asset creators here, because they've undersold their product, and any potential artist that could have been employed by the studio to make assets for their game.

The marketplace could introduce multiple tiers of extended licenses based on anticipated revenue [some dev tools/engines work on this kind of scale], but that's either going to be difficult to police on a per-asset-basis [likely to fall entirely on the vendor], or its going to increase overhead costs as the marketplace will have to bring on some sort of asset-use-compliance personnel, which will raise costs on everything, and/or cut into the content creator's already narrow margins. A royalties system? Probably a total logistical mess as well.

You also seem to be under the impression Poser is a game dev tool? It isn't. It never has been. It [likely] never will be. I've never seen it used for anything beyond early look-dev or shovelware. I have to imagine, this site isn't trafficked heavily by parties looking for extended license assets for that purpose relative to other sites that cater more specifically to game dev assets. That means the assets that are for sale on extended license here may skew slightly higher, than on other sites because there's less of it - basic economics, supply/demand stuff. If you're finding assets that are both cheaper and more game ready elsewhere as you've claimed, I'm not sure why you're looking here, to be perfectly honest. I don't think this has ever been the marketplace for that type of production-ready asset.

"Privilege tax"? - C'mon, its literally in the name "extended license". You're paying for the RIGHTS to use an asset in an extended [potentially] revenue generating manner, one that will, in part or in whole, involve redistributing the asset. Its the same as purchasing the rights to use a song [or anything else] for your game.

"We live in a Blender, Unreal ... world ... the divide will only get bigger with friction like this" - Are you implying that free-to-use tools [don't forget Unity here] are somehow increasing the divide between hobbyists and professionals when it comes to developing games? That is beyond ludicrous. The divide is so much narrower now than it was at pretty much anytime* in the past.

Remember the days when you had to drop a few grand on a license for 3DSMax or Maya [before AutoDesk bought it] or maybe even both, and PhotoShop on top of that? Or how about when your only options for a game engine were to license one for possibly tens of thousands of dollars, or build your own from scratch? What if you had to license a dev kit from say, Sony - the original PlayStation dev kits were upwards of $100k.

Did you really mean to say - "I think its unfair that studios that make money from their games can buy ready-made assets [with the appropriate license] or employ artists to create assets for them, so I should be entitled to use other people's assets at a greatly reduced cost because I lack the ability/skill/desire to learn to make assets myself"?

* I'll caveat that with games today are FAR more complex than they were in maybe the APPLE IIe era where a few people could bang out the top games on a platform like that. Oregon Trail was made by three guys in a couple weeks, for example.

Thanks for your reply, and you bring up some interesting points.

Well my "suggestion" was to remove the Standard and Extended licenses and replace them with something that doesn't make game dev's third class citizens here because obviously you can monetize with the Standard licence a lot easier than the "Extended" way and yet monetized Standard license content doesn't seem to bother anyone??  It's only the "rich" game dev's??? lol IMO it's complete nonsense! And if it actually worked you would have game dev's here.... where are they? I want to talk to them! 

So, game studios are using Poser and assets and need to pay their fair share BUT you insist that Poser isn't a game dev tool??? That logic doesn't make much sense my friend.

For me 100% Poser was (and still is) a game dev tool! It has good and reliable import/export (collada/FBX), scripting and now with GLTF an PBR support IMO it's still a good game dev tool and I don't mind paying for it, it's obviously not a "serious" (game studio) tool but it doesn't have to be when the learning curve is 1/50th of blender/UE etc. And well if you're making janky shovelware games, is that a commercial game to you?  lol because that's the kinda game you get from Poser right, I've stated that and now you have also.... so what are the chances of anyone paying for the game dev tax making a janky shovelware game? That's been my point.

https://www.oreilly.com/videos/poser-pro-game/9781771373425/ (You can watch for free with the trial, unfortunately it can't be bought out right.)

I've watched this a few times and Mark goes through a lot of content without ever mentioning licensing! I'm not that autistic enough to check if they are game dev licensed tho. lol

Anyway,  that's why I've bought Poser (a few times) and then signed up here, assuming Poser content and store were game dev friendly.... wow was I wrong!

Don't worry, I was just a tinkerer, I haven't put anyone's hard work on any stores potentially getting rich from my janky shovelware game! lol do you guys hear yourselves???

I recently thought I'd get serious with gamedev (again) and I was about to pay for Prime and buy a few assets, then I noticed the  store Standard/Extra license and then the actual Poser EULA. You can imagine my shock! I'm a Poser user but excluded from Poser content and the store, is that what you want? is that really fair?

Had I known Poser was so anti game dev with content, I most likely wouldn't have bought it.

It's a shame because I like poser and I'm still using it for 3D rigging/skinning and animation and the store looks great but the extra licensing is just unnecessarily insulting.

Like I said before (and you made my point), 3D game dev pipeline WAS expensive but it's not today (that's the divide I meant, free vs paid, cheap vs expensive), and that includes content but that's not a bad thing because if things are cheaper you get more sales, basic 101 economic stuff. But you need people participating not excluding them based on old and out dated perception of 3D content monetization. I'm not saying everything has to be free or cheap, but you need a very very good reason! and just saying "game's make money" isn't it because everything makes money and yet it really doesn't, at least it doesn't on the Poser janky shovelware game dev side.

Honestly I'd think content creators would make more money with more people here with better, equal and fair licensing ie:

non commercial / commercial

 attribution / no attribution

single use / multi use

etc etc etc

I like attribution / no attribution, if you're not crediting the original creator, well IMO that's more serious (ie "reselling someone else's work") than if something is non commercial or commercial (and hoping), or renders or video game.

And if most people are paying for attribution stuff, there's more sharing and growing etc etc.

That was my suggestion anyway.

Thanks again.

Ben.

Warlock279 posted at 2:17 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505119

Your premise/rant is narrow minded, self centered and flawed, you're missing the biggest issue - just because YOUR games don't make money, doesn't mean EVERYONE's games fail to make money, and that's why the extended licensing options [need to] exist.

You're doing it as a hobbyist and asset costs add up, that's unfortunate. If you want to decrease your hobby related costs, you learn to do more things yourself/"wear many hats", that's the way "hobbies" have always been. Many of the content creators here are doing it as a hobby/side gig too. The assets for sale here are at minuscule fractions of the cost of the work they took to create - even with an extended license, you're still paying far below the actual production cost. There are some "free for non-commercial use" assets and tools out there, you could always look into those avenues, but you'd have to abide by the license which means there likely would be NO means for you to see even a partial return financially on your game.

If you don't have extended licenses then a studio producing games can effectively scoop up assets for fractional costs to use in their games. Even if, as you say, many of the assets aren't entirely game ready, it wouldn't take much work - a fraction of the work it would to create assets from scratch. That hurts both the asset creators here, because they've undersold their product, and any potential artist that could have been employed by the studio to make assets for their game.

The marketplace could introduce multiple tiers of extended licenses based on anticipated revenue [some dev tools/engines work on this kind of scale], but that's either going to be difficult to police on a per-asset-basis [likely to fall entirely on the vendor], or its going to increase overhead costs as the marketplace will have to bring on some sort of asset-use-compliance personnel, which will raise costs on everything, and/or cut into the content creator's already narrow margins. A royalties system? Probably a total logistical mess as well.

You also seem to be under the impression Poser is a game dev tool? It isn't. It never has been. It [likely] never will be. I've never seen it used for anything beyond early look-dev or shovelware. I have to imagine, this site isn't trafficked heavily by parties looking for extended license assets for that purpose relative to other sites that cater more specifically to game dev assets. That means the assets that are for sale on extended license here may skew slightly higher, than on other sites because there's less of it - basic economics, supply/demand stuff. If you're finding assets that are both cheaper and more game ready elsewhere as you've claimed, I'm not sure why you're looking here, to be perfectly honest. I don't think this has ever been the marketplace for that type of production-ready asset.

"Privilege tax"? - C'mon, its literally in the name "extended license". You're paying for the RIGHTS to use an asset in an extended [potentially] revenue generating manner, one that will, in part or in whole, involve redistributing the asset. Its the same as purchasing the rights to use a song [or anything else] for your game.

"We live in a Blender, Unreal ... world ... the divide will only get bigger with friction like this" - Are you implying that free-to-use tools [don't forget Unity here] are somehow increasing the divide between hobbyists and professionals when it comes to developing games? That is beyond ludicrous. The divide is so much narrower now than it was at pretty much anytime* in the past.

Remember the days when you had to drop a few grand on a license for 3DSMax or Maya [before AutoDesk bought it] or maybe even both, and PhotoShop on top of that? Or how about when your only options for a game engine were to license one for possibly tens of thousands of dollars, or build your own from scratch? What if you had to license a dev kit from say, Sony - the original PlayStation dev kits were upwards of $100k.

Did you really mean to say - "I think its unfair that studios that make money from their games can buy ready-made assets [with the appropriate license] or employ artists to create assets for them, so I should be entitled to use other people's assets at a greatly reduced cost because I lack the ability/skill/desire to learn to make assets myself"?

* I'll caveat that with games today are FAR more complex than they were in maybe the APPLE IIe era where a few people could bang out the top games on a platform like that. Oregon Trail was made by three guys in a couple weeks, for example.

Just a note!

Warlock279 wrote:
"You also seem to be under the impression Poser is a game dev tool? It isn't. It never has been."

I bougth Poser Pro 2014 Game Dev back in the days, in the "PPGameDev-P10-PP2014-P10-Debut-Feature-Comparison-Matrix" it says, under the chapter "Library and Included Content"  (over 5 GB) that it is is Royalty Free for Game Inclusion.

jonnybode posted at 9:54 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505132

Just a note!

Warlock279 wrote:
"You also seem to be under the impression Poser is a game dev tool? It isn't. It never has been."

I bougth Poser Pro 2014 Game Dev back in the days, in the "PPGameDev-P10-PP2014-P10-Debut-Feature-Comparison-Matrix" it says, under the chapter "Library and Included Content"  (over 5 GB) that it is is Royalty Free for Game Inclusion.

From what I recall it essentially just offered a way to [automatically] reduce the polygon count of Poser models so they were theoretically more game ready. The reality is automated poly reduction tools are almost never going to cut it, especially for models that need to be rigged for animation/deformation, and doubly so in the case of low poly game models where every triangle and edge loop counts. I suspect you'd end up with at least as much work cleaning up, if not just re-meshing the model as if you'd done it manually from the start.

I could probably argue its short shelf life and complete lack of adoption, might be making my point. :p

jonnybode posted at 9:54 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505132

Just a note!

Warlock279 wrote:
"You also seem to be under the impression Poser is a game dev tool? It isn't. It never has been."

I bougth Poser Pro 2014 Game Dev back in the days, in the "PPGameDev-P10-PP2014-P10-Debut-Feature-Comparison-Matrix" it says, under the chapter "Library and Included Content"  (over 5 GB) that it is is Royalty Free for Game Inclusion.

Thanks, that explains why Mark didn't mention any licensing... I just assumed it was similar to the more current EULA. 

@Warlock279, well that's exactly what I said in my OP lol not being game ready, the PITA of making it so and then game dev tax on top for the privilege.

"If you don't have extended licenses then a studio producing games can effectively scoop up assets for fractional costs to use in their games. "
Did you really mean to say - "I think its unfair that studios that make money from their games can buy ready-made assets [with the appropriate license] or employ artists to create assets for them, so I should be entitled to use other people's assets at a greatly reduced cost because I lack the ability/skill/desire to learn to make assets myself"?

Yes and yes, That's literally the world we live in now, humblebundle routinely sells HUGE asset packs for like $20, look it up. I guess they do it to prime the artist's review page?

And I'm a Poser user not an artist, I don't want to be an Artist, so Poser is fine for me.... or I would just use Blender like everyone else lol What are we doing here? lol

I would have preferred to buy Prime and Poser content even tho it's more expensive for me, and that's fine but not at the Extra license level... so you get nothing and by the sounds of it, that's how merchants want it? That's weird to me, but ok.

Also, I can call myself a "game studio" but that doesn't make me one. Real game studios have artist to make original art, they tend not to buy 3rd party prefabs or art, because it's a legal and trust nightmare, like music as you mentioned. The people that do, tend to be hobbyists that either never make anything or make something that doesn't get noticed.

"Indie" is the term for a hobbyist that wrongly thinks they're going to make money.... I don't have that delusion.

Ben,

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

Thanks for your reply, and you bring up some interesting points.

Well my "suggestion" was to remove the Standard and Extended licenses and replace them with something that doesn't make game dev's third class citizens here because obviously you can monetize with the Standard licence a lot easier than the "Extended" way and yet monetized Standard license content doesn't seem to bother anyone??  It's only the "rich" game dev's??? lol IMO it's complete nonsense! And if it actually worked you would have game dev's here.... where are they? I want to talk to them!

You are talking to them, or one of them anyway. Hi, game dev here, worked professionally on my first title in ... 2009[?] I think. I'm not here for the marketplace content in that regard tho, I'm here for what remains of the forums most of which are now long gone. Speaking of "long gone forums" the game dev forum here was one of the shortest lived, and first to go when they started culling forums. It existed for a few hot minutes around the time Poser Pro Game Dev that @jonnybode mentioned above came out, bolstered by the support for Unity at the time, and lingered for a bit after, but never saw much traffic. Make of that what you will.

I don't believe the "extended license" was ever necessarily meant to attract game devs here, I think it was meant more as a way for vendors already here to offer their products to a wider audience SHOULD any of that audience happen to wander by. There was almost a hot minute when Poser and the Sims could have been a thing, but around the same time the Sims got draconian with content rights, and NOBODY wanted their content anywhere near that game.

Perhaps you're right, and extended licenses could be done away with entirely here, and then no products [or considerably fewer anyway] would be allowed for use beyond the standard image rendering that is the foundation of this site. I don't have marketplace numbers to know how many, or how well extended licenses actually sell compared to regular ones, but perhaps that could be an option.

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

So, game studios are using Poser and assets and need to pay their fair share BUT you insist that Poser isn't a game dev tool??? That logic doesn't make much sense my friend.

No game studios are NOT using Poser, and they're probably not using Poser assets either. For the most part, neither Poser models, nor assets created for it, are particularly game friendly. The polycounts are typically too high, textures and geometry aren't optimized. A heap of work needs to go in to making them game-ready. If you have to start rebuilding the mesh, you've hosed the UVs, the new geo may not produce UVs that fit the old textures, and so on. There's a break even point between the amount of work it takes to clean-up an existing asset vs just making a new one, often times the latter becomes the path of least resistance. There have been a number of times I've started with actual game assets, even ones I've made myself that needed tweaked or changed, and its still proven more effective just to start fresh.

Now that said, and this is where extended licenses come in handy, just because A LOT of Poser assets aren't game friendly, that doesn't mean assets can't be developed game friendly from the start, and then also used in Poser. I think I would eventually like to sell assets here, given my background my assets would almost certainly rely heavily on game friendly techniques and optimizations meaning there would likely be little to no work to get them into a game engine. As such, I would almost certainly want to have them under an extended license. I would expect extended license sales to be few and far between, but I would like that option to be available to me, none the less.

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

For me 100% Poser was (and still is) a game dev tool! It has good and reliable import/export (collada/FBX), scripting and now with GLTF an PBR support IMO it's still a good game dev tool and I don't mind paying for it, it's obviously not a "serious" (game studio) tool but it doesn't have to be when the learning curve is 1/50th of blender/UE etc. And well if you're making janky shovelware games, is that a commercial game to you?  lol because that's the kinda game you get from Poser right, I've stated that and now you have also.... so what are the chances of anyone paying for the game dev tax making a janky shovelware game? That's been my point.

That's great, if it works for you and what you want to do with it, have at it. Please don't let my criticism yuck your yum.

I absolutely consider "shovelware" games to be commercial. They are the lowest common denominator of commercial games, sure, but I'm not sure how you'd label them as anything other than "commercial" when they're being sold, even if the price is only $1 or $2 on an app store.

Let me clarify, when I'm using the term "shovelware" I'm not talking about every game that isn't a AAA title, or even necessarily "janky" games where the developer tried, but maybe some things just didn't work out, they've still got stuff to learn - I'm talking about games that are churned out in a short time span, using primarily pre-existing/recycled/stock assets, and typically recycling if not out-right ripping off mechanics from other popular games - ie "can we make a game for $1X that suckers enough people in to buying this that it generates $2X?". How many Angry Birds-a-likes were there for awhile for example, promising the Angry Birds game-play experience for half the app price, but were just half baked clones? Many of those titles exploiting microtransactions to increase revenue as well. That's "shovelware" by my definition, and that is absolutely a commercial pursuit, a scummy one, but a commercial one regardless.

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

https://www.oreilly.com/videos/poser-pro-game/9781771373425/ (You can watch for free with the trial, unfortunately it can't be bought out right.)

I've watched this a few times and Mark goes through a lot of content without ever mentioning licensing! I'm not that autistic enough to check if they are game dev licensed tho. lol

Anyway,  that's why I've bought Poser (a few times) and then signed up here, assuming Poser content and store were game dev friendly.... wow was I wrong!

Don't worry, I was just a tinkerer, I haven't put anyone's hard work on any stores potentially getting rich from my janky shovelware game! lol do you guys hear yourselves???

I recently thought I'd get serious with gamedev (again) and I was about to pay for Prime and buy a few assets, then I noticed the  store Standard/Extra license and then the actual Poser EULA. You can imagine my shock! I'm a Poser user but excluded from Poser content and the store, is that what you want? is that really fair?

Had I known Poser was so anti game dev with content, I most likely wouldn't have bought it.

It's a shame because I like poser and I'm still using it for 3D rigging/skinning and animation and the store looks great but the extra licensing is just unnecessarily insulting.

Looking at that its dated from 2015, that would have been shortly after the previously mentioned Poser 2014 Game Dev version would have been release. I had forgotten that  existed until it was mentioned here, it didn't appear to ever gain much of a foothold. It was an attempt to break into that market, but it fell flat. I could absolutely be mistaken here, there could be an entire underground Poser game dev community going strong out there, but if that's the case I've never run across it. I'm sorry you may have been misguided in that regard, that's unfortunate.

Even with everything I've said, I still feel its wrong to categorize Poser as "anti game dev", its not really, its just different worlds. Poser assets prioritize looking good, high resolution textures etc, with limited concerns about optimizations because its used for offline renders. If a model takes an extra couple minutes to render in Poser, that's not likely to make or break anything. Game assets prioritize optimization and performance and looking good comes second because its about real-time renders. If a game doesn't RUN and PLAY well, its not going to matter how good it looks, its success is going to be hindered by poor performance.

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

Like I said before (and you made my point), 3D game dev pipeline WAS expensive but it's not today (that's the divide I meant, free vs paid, cheap vs expensive), and that includes content but that's not a bad thing because if things are cheaper you get more sales, basic 101 economic stuff. But you need people participating not excluding them based on old and out dated perception of 3D content monetization. I'm not saying everything has to be free or cheap, but you need a very very good reason! and just saying "game's make money" isn't it because everything makes money and yet it really doesn't, at least it doesn't on the Poser janky shovelware game dev side.

I might argue extended licenses are the opposite of "old and outdated", if anything they're more progressive than "you get nothing, unless you make it yourself". I still don't think you're realizing how bad things could be if everything was cheap for commercial use. Studios employ artists because they can have them produce custom assets for a cost that isn't significantly higher than if they had to source and alter/update/tweak assets they bought on markets with appropriate licenses.

If those studios were able to pick up all the assets they need at a fraction of the cost that likely wipes out most of the artists they're employing. Sure you've probably still got a couple intern level artists to do the tweaking, and maybe a lead artist that's in charge of "art direction" or "asset acquisition" but that's probably about it. All those previously employed studio artists need to go somewhere, and there's not enough market space if they're all competing to sell the $2 barrel asset that gets used in the next 72 games produced.

I don't have statistics for this, but humor my thought experiment anyway - the number of users buying assets to use for renders on this site alone, likely exceed the number the total number of game studios including indie studios in the entire world. If that is the case, and I'm pretty confident it is, that means it might be next to impossible to ever sell enough volume of a game asset at a non-extended-license-rate to make it worth it.

bingomion posted at 8:02 PM Wed, 8 April 2026 - #4505130

Honestly I'd think content creators would make more money with more people here with better, equal and fair licensing ie:

non commercial / commercial

 attribution / no attribution

single use / multi use

etc etc etc

I like attribution / no attribution, if you're not crediting the original creator, well IMO that's more serious (ie "reselling someone else's work") than if something is non commercial or commercial (and hoping), or renders or video game.

And if most people are paying for attribution stuff, there's more sharing and growing etc etc.

That was my suggestion anyway.

Thanks again.

Ben.

You have to keep in mind, its not Poser or even Renderosity Marketplace that is responsible for the pricing and licensing designation. That's up to the vendors. I'm sure the Marketplace has people that will help steer vendors in the right direction, but its largely up to the vendor. They're creating the assets, its their content, they should absolutely have the right to say how its used.

Those vendors are coming from all different backgrounds, with varying skill levels, etc. Some of them are creating content for themselves purely as hobbyists, that they're happy to release and if it generates a few sales, great, if not that doesn't really hurt them, so they might not care much about restricting uses. Others are relying on sales ranging from a side gig to a substantial portion of their income, and would feel their work is significantly under valued if its used in a capacity that involves redistribution of their content.

Isn't "commercial / non-commercial" essentially the licensing structure you have issue with now? That sounds pretty much like what the extended license is - a commercial use license.

What do you mean - "Attribution / No Attribution"? That's just about the scummiest trick in the book - "Hey work for us, we'll give you credit/exposure and you can use it in your portfolio/on your resume". I thought we'd mostly done away with that exploitation/"speculative work", but sure, lets bring that back? Attribution doesn't mean squat. I'm far more interested in being payed a fair rate than I am in seeing my name buried somewhere in the credits that doesn't even make it clear whether I was responsible for the lead character model, or a crate that's in the background of one shot.

Single use / multi-use - so everyone here would have to purchase a multi-use license if they wanted to use an asset in more than one render? That feels pretty awful. Never mind how incredibly unfair that would be if users had to purchase a multi-use license so they could make more than one render, but a game studio could buy a single use license if they only use the asset in one game?

Okay so I think I'm understanding things better.

The EULA states the conditions of the included resources... So I can disregard all legal stuff in each Poser content zip, because my agreement is with Poser not the individual creator that's part of the Poser content packs above... https://www.renderosity.com/forums/comments/4504923/permalink

That makes sense and it was probably included as creator notes and not for licensing purposes from the store....  but geees It's still a headache to navigate tho.

So I take back that Poser is anti game dev!

Thanks to everyone that help clarify things! lol

I found the "Game dev" forum: https://www.renderosity.com/forums/12545/unity-and-game-dev?start_date=07%2F04%2F2018&end_date=

Not much there, but that makes sense because Poser was own by Smith Micro pre 2020.

 There is a post there however similar to this one, finding out about the extra license "paying 2 times" :/

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2948622/question-about-buying-and-using-stuffs-for-game-dev

Just to keep everything together.... 

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2987738/can-i-decimatesimplify-the-geometry-file-in-poser#msg4505493

Poser 12 and above are not as useful for game dev as P11 and 2014 were because they removed figure reduce polygon and find hidden polygons.  Which means you would have to create the character (cloths etc) in Poser, export to do the reduction (and textures/face etc), import back into Poser and rig and animate, export again into game engine. I think anyway, I haven't played around with it enough. I don't think you would want to mess with polygon reduction with it being animated... I wouldn't trust it anyway.

I have P11 so moving forward I'll be using that....  I'm still a Poser noob and I'll be setting up a workflow based mostly on the Poser game dev videos:

 https://www.oreilly.com/videos/poser-pro-game/9781771373425/ (You can watch for free with the trial, unfortunately it can't be bought out right.) 

So:

1) character morph, cloth fitting room , face room (yes  it's basic and is useful for me!)

2) remove hidden polygons and reduce for hi res model.

3) animation set

3) export models as high res, reduced LOD1 LOD2 LOD3 and collision

4) export animation

4) Engine work

From basic testing it all seems to just work fine.

https://www.ambiera.com/coppercube

Adult Image Blocked

Image blocked according to your Max Maturity Rating : Safe

View Anyway Settings

bingomion posted at 10:59 PM Fri, 17 April 2026 - #4505455

I found the "Game dev" forum: https://www.renderosity.com/forums/12545/unity-and-game-dev?start_date=07%2F04%2F2018&end_date=

Not much there, but that makes sense because Poser was own by Smith Micro pre 2020.

 There is a post there however similar to this one, finding out about the extra license "paying 2 times" :/

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2948622/question-about-buying-and-using-stuffs-for-game-dev

Ya, that forum never really caught on, it was a bit late to the game. Forums the entire internet over were already fading, a few of the more popular game dev forums elsewhere had already shuttered by the time Rosty added the one here, it never really stood a chance.

Just to keep everything together.... 

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2987738/can-i-decimatesimplify-the-geometry-file-in-poser#msg4505493

Poser 12 and above are not as useful for game dev as P11 and 2014 were because they removed figure reduce polygon and find hidden polygons.  Which means you would have to create the character (cloths etc) in Poser, export to do the reduction (and textures/face etc), import back into Poser and rig and animate, export again into game engine. I think anyway, I haven't played around with it enough. I don't think you would want to mess with polygon reduction with it being animated... I wouldn't trust it anyway.

I have P11 so moving forward I'll be using that....  I'm still a Poser noob and I'll be setting up a workflow based mostly on the Poser game dev videos:

 https://www.oreilly.com/videos/poser-pro-game/9781771373425/ (You can watch for free with the trial, unfortunately it can't be bought out right.) 

So:

1) character morph, cloth fitting room , face room (yes  it's basic and is useful for me!)

2) remove hidden polygons and reduce for hi res model.

3) animation set

3) export models as high res, reduced LOD1 LOD2 LOD3 and collision

4) export animation

4) Engine work

From basic testing it all seems to just work fine.

https://www.ambiera.com/coppercube

Its unfortunately not uncommon to have to "jump through some hoops" when you're moving models between software, especially when one or more are not necessarily meant for the purpose you're using them for. In cases of really popular software combinations they might develop a "bridge" software/plugin that facilitates working between them, but that's not always the case. As long as you've got something that is effect and you're comfortable with, that's all the really matters I guess.

I have to keep two versions of Blender around because the older version imports LWOs while the newer one doesn't, and LightWave does a terrible job with exporting OBJs,- my pipeline is better served by importing an LWO into an old version of Blender, saving it in the Blender format, then working on it in the newer version of Blender  before sending an OBJ or FBX or something off depending on where its going next.

Blender is free and opensource, you can get a fiverr coder or AI to migrate that LWO plugin, Poser is paid and proprietary, I don't have that privilege.... I can only hope they don't turn off v11 authentication servers (which they will one day!).

That's the lamentable thing is that Poser had the tools already and then removed.... And so far I trust Poser's animated exports and how it packages UV images... Going out to an external tool, paid of free, is IMO a risk unless you also trust it also and then the skills.... PITA PITA PITA!!!

Also the "Combine figures" menu option is also missing, I searched v13 PDF manual for an equivalent feature and couldn't find one.

Which makes me wonder what's the point of supporting GLTF/PBR when exporting is so crippled like this?? Again, Am I missing something??

I have no idea how to export a full figure in my v13... combined into a single model and animated and exported like in v11. Can it be done?   I see tutorial videos on YouTube but most (good ones anyway) are v11 or older.

I think the real reason all the "game dev" features were removed was because they didn't want to support or maintain it, as in it wasn't "core business"... but IMO it was (very much still is!) and it was ahead of it's time, but back in 2014 "indies" were mostly about making simple 2D games, it started maturing in the late 2010's and IMO didn't stop until 2023.... COVID game bubble and AI "art" etc.

This is still in v11, it's impressive to me. Xbox One kinect (v2) with Poser v11 is a CRAZY! cheap solution to animation capture and it looks like it works pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnCJ5a4Bwo

It was removed because "game dev bad"?? Don't you render guys want easy animation???

I don't know why Poser Game Dev wasn't as popular as it deserved to be... it had the features and bundled royalty free assets.

I can imagine the equivalent in a 3D package being a multiple times more expensive and Blender wasn't taken seriously back then, until it got proper FBX support and UI change IMO.

I think maybe it was an awareness or skills (3D being a lot harder than 2D) issue, maybe even the limited hardware targets requiring perfect retopo and normal map baking etc, remember Ouya? 

If they bundled or made freely available something like that oreilly game dev pro training video, anyway... what could have been lol

I looked at DAZ polygon reduction paid add on feature, and while it looks great, it's not scriptable, poser's v11 is so (in theory anyway) I can batch export LODs.

It's a real shame, I don't like being negative all the time, but holy cow v12 was cannibalised!!! I just hope the "new" direction is worth it!