[Released] Morph Character System (MCS) - Male and Female

The reason the Unity agreement controls here is because in order to put a product for sale on the store, a seller must agree to Unity's terms, which include an agreement that the seller can't subsequently override the Unity agreement. It isn't the agreement between you and Unity, or you and Morph3d that is dispositive of the issue....it is the agreement between Morph3D and Unity. Morph 3D agreed that Unity's EULA would control for assets purchased through Unity store.

 

That would worry me less if I hadn't already created a dozen new skin textures, and several new creature textures from the zipfiles included in the 1.0 release. Creating textures isn't hard. Having to pay someone to do it all again, in a totally different atlas format, and not even having the base scale/fur/feather masks to start from... that's the kicker for me... oh, and rebuilding 20 people and redoing the textures for all that, oh, and redoing all the props, and manually going through the re-attachment points... let's just say it's the "we hate everything you have ever done, ever... so start again from zero" I hate the most ;-)

-Dx

 

Hi!

Since Artist Yools have been released, I've decided to play around with them, however I can't properly import the characters into Blender (v2,78a) Mesh and skeleton look very deformed (attaching screenshot).
I've tried different import settings but with no luck. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Chris

 

Which is what the license is for. However; purchasing a license to something ie. Marvelous designer, substance painter, doesn't give them the right to tell you what you do with your art. (They could, but they usually don't.) ie. 3dscan store has a clause on not using their scans for certain situations (explicit things and so on).

Substance painter is actually converting your ideas to substances btw which you can freely sell if you wish. This also took much time to evaluate I'm sure. They also add constant updates and bug fixes. It's really the same scenario.

I get that it's their rig and model. Mixamo had a similar clause I think but they were auto rigging. It didn't really matter as much. You could just add your own rig to it.

Really, your not reselling their rig, just your own clothing. None of the core scripts are included with your package. The customer should already have those imported into their scene.

Also, the tools don't do any skinning, so really, your just using the base and the rig as template for your clothing. Bases are freely available as are rigs, albeit, not ones compatible with MCS. That mostly comes down to bone naming most likely.

 

However, the model that goes into the 3dMorph tool is your own model, that you made with your own hands. All you are doing is making it work with their base, so that people will have clothes to buy and use for their game characters. The more clothes that are available for the base characters, the more people will buy the base characters.

So..the income for Morph3d comes with the increased user base buying the base characters and the Morph3d tool.

When I use Maya LT, I actually use plenty of their primatives, their rig, their shaders, etc. But they only charge me one fee for using their tool. They do not take a share of my hard work.

When I use Photoshop, I use their brushes, their patterns, their filters, and their special effects. They do not take a share of any sale on art I make.

I could go on and on. Every tool has special additions that you use in your artwork. The sale of the tool covers those additions.

 

Umm Im just here to ask a question about injection masks but what is going on with all the drama ? Whats happening ?!?!? lol

 

LOL, I'd go ahead and state your question, someone will answer and give ya a hand to the best of their ability.

For the rest, you'd have to bounce back 2-3 pages, and read the discussion about new terms and licensing issues, though I bet the majority of us would welcome some lighter posts in the the space of waiting for some clarifications from Morph3D.

LOL, picture twenty or so game developers(me included) standing around beating a dead horse, kinda just killing time spinning their wheels(mostly from disgust and frustration), while waiting for answers they know will be coming, as the questions are too distinct to ignore.

 

There is an important exception! It is worth noting that there is an "export" exception, that grants individual characters "exported" from makehuman (in .fbx format, for example) a CC0 license to those characters (the best license there is!). So if you make a character, you can use it in a game, and don't even need to attribute Makehuman. What you can't do is use the makehuman program itself in your game....like making a character system that allows you to alter your character's facial appearance using the underlying Makehuman code, or linking back to some external library of Makehuman morphs. But other systems (someone mentioned UMA) be used to morph your exported .fbx character. Simply put, if you "export to .fbx" you can use that character or improve on it ion outside programs under CC0.

 

I'm still hung up on the fact that I bought the male and female base characters a couple months ago, forced to wait for updates and promised "artist tools" for customization. Only to see that the models are now free, with no word of benefit for having paid for it.
And to top it off the asset just isn't functional with the new update.

What they fail to realize is that developers don't just buy a new asset based on a fancy website or screenshots. They network and ask questions, and if they alienate their user base like this, I can't see how it will be profitable for them.

 

Yeah, @Teila pointed it out to me too. We've been discussing it (and other options) in PM

Thanks for the help though!

 

Time for me to chip in I guess. I have to vent a bit, since my weekend was already ruined by the update and there still is no fix (of course).

@Morph-3D
I personally am amazed by the lack of professionalism in this. How can anyone push a new build live before a weekend? I understand that you wanted to have the new version available for GDC, but seriously, would it have been so bad to just say "will be available next week"? Now, due to the broken assets (Compile errors for the male base figure during import, prefabs not usable, animations that worked before are now broken, etc.), you stopped development on dozens of projects and have a whole bunch of artists and developers in a frenzy. Did you even test anything before releasing this mess?
And of course there is no update and probably won't be for a couple of days at least. We do not even have a roadmap for that...

Also, the question has been asked a couple of times before, and there is no answer on this as of yet:
You "deprecated" the Minotaur and Reptilian, but in fact you did not just deprecate those but you made them absolutely worthless with the update of your system to version 1.6, since one supposedly cannot mix 1.0 and 1.6 content. What irritates me here even more is, that you are still selling those models in your own asset-store. What's up with that?
So do those models get an upgrade at some point or do we get our money back?
At the very least provide a detailed guide on how to use these models alongside the new ones.

About the whole licensing fiasco:
I am a developer and I just am not able to create 3d content. MCS seemed like a god-sent, but well, if it seems to good to be true...
I was actually planning on releasing new characters as DLC when/if my game ever sees the light of day. Now I learned that your EULA prohibits that.
I purchased from the Unity Asset Store on which there is not the slightest mention of the existence of that very EULA. You cannot just add "By accepting this End User License Agreement (EULA) or by downloading or using items provided through Morph3d.com or by downloading or using Morph 3D content provided through other mechanisms you signify that you have read and agree to all the terms of this license agreement." in front of you EULA and think that is okay.
I am no lawyer, and my grasp of US-law is negligible, but I cannot imagine that you have any base for that whole document, especially when you did not even provide the possibility of prior knowledge to the customer.
"Luckily" fore me, it has been mentioned before that the Unity Asset Store license supersedes your EULA, no matter how much wishful thinking you put into it.
I still would like some official confirmation on that though...

It's puzzling how you are trying to screw over all the people your business depends on so you can be paid three times for the same thing:
- By taking a cut from the artists and "hijack" their creations.
- By extorting even more money from the developers who already "bought" your content.
- And probably also by the end customer if they actually use your "Ready Room" to purchase new outfits.

This may fly in your Daz3D business, where all that is created in the end are pretty pictures, but this is game development, stuff works quite a bit differently here.
All in all I have the feeling that you really miscalculated your target audience: Your MCS is not used by big companies or even big indie developers. Those have their own, exclusive art, either created in-house or by direct licensing.
Your actual target group are small indie developers that may not even have a game released, maybe never will, and the prospect of having additional cost and a licensing nightmare ahead, will turn off a lot if not all of those potential customers. And the artists that actually would love to provide additional content for your product and thereby make it more attractive will also not do so under the current terms and conditions.

So here are some suggestions if you want your business to succeed and not die due to 1-star ratings pouring in:
- Create a new EULA from scratch, your current one is useless and, above all, despicable.
- Publish your "Ready Room", but give it a decent license. Make sure that artists can also sell their stuff on other platforms of their choice, allow developers to include that product, do not force them!
- Provide a migration path for your deprecated content or money back.
- Fix your broken assets!
- Do better QA!
- Get a statement out that actually explains the situation and your plans
- Apologize to the community for this whole mess.
- Provide a roadmap for fixing the assets and the EULA
- Stop being so wishy-washy about everything and stop ignoring us.

 

I can't really express how much I disagree with this viewpoint. You add zero extra value in this case, because the results can only actually be used in the MCS system, which we also paid for- $50 for each of the base models, before they just kicked us in the teeth again. We paid for the system, and now we're having to pay for the adaptation tools- this is not the same as adding universal value to a product. Whatever value is being gained by adding blendshapes is being lost by making the results only usable by the MCS system, and actually, I'd say its losing value given the reliability of the MCS system in general up to this point.

To put it another way, going back to my OBJ -> FBX converter example, if FBX files were superior to OBJ files in some way, it doesn't make the converter any less of a converter, and it doesn't entitle the developer for that converter any portion of ownership over the results. Their product, which you have to pay for separately, being the only way to actually utilize those improvements in a production environment really renders your whole point moot.

They were already guaranteed to profit from the process in either case, so why are they screwing with us?

As I mentioned before though, there's nothing stopping absolutely anyone from making clothing and then selling it on the Asset Store as "MCS-Ready", with the only step left being using the Artist Tools to adapt it. As long as the Artist Tools weren't used yet and we're careful to say "compatible with" instead of implying a partnership with M3D, they literally can't stop that. That being the case, the restrictions on assets that have had the Tools used on them make little sense- the norm will be just purchasing new clothing from developers on the Asset Store anyways, and then running them through the Tools ourselves for use in our own games (I'd make absolutely sure of it, even if I have to post on this thread every single day).

It increases the work slightly, but it's far better than letting M3D dictate where and how we can sell our own creations. You can make light of the restrictions here, but this is the biggest deal-breaker for a lot of people here. It's silly, unreasonable, and it has no place in Unity, just like the MMO and In-App Purchase restrictions.

 

So... it's day one of the GDC conference... I've tried to find Morph3D's presence at GDC, they appear to only be there as an exhibitor, in 341 South Hall.
If anyone is at the GDC, go pay them a little visit and see what they have to say about the current state of things.
I almost wish @Lysander was there, I could see a passive little protest right in front of their booth right now, lol.

 

@Astaelan1
I thought about going, but my experience with E3 last year really wasn't very good, so I'm taking a break from those kinds of things for awhile. I dislike the fact that these conferences are becoming more and more like typical conventions (fandom) rather than about development. I did have some excellent discussions with Marvelous, Natsume, Aksys, and Sekai Project at E3, but I mostly had to actually schedule time with them to make that happen. Sekai Project didn't even have a booth, I just knew they were in the city, so I could've probably scheduled something with them whether E3 was going on or not, lol.

I definitely second the idea of talking to them in person and seeing what they have to say. According to the staffer who frequents the forums here, he has no real power to know or directly impact decisions made by the company. Perhaps the staff there are the conference are in a better position to know what the company is thinking and why, and you guys can convince them to turn away from the dark side before their product dies.

 

A thousand times this. This EULA discussion is all well and good, but the EULA discussion is putting the cart before the horse when it's absolutely impossible to build a unity game with a working clothed MCS 1.6 figure.

The points made about the Minotaur/Reptilian models are spot on as well. At the bare minimum, there needs to be a way to operate these along side 1.6 figures (once the 1.6 figure work that is) or refunds should be issued for anyone who purchased those recently.

 

You know what you're right. I am just going to do that. Rate the asset 1 star and write a review. Thanks for the suggestion

 

I did that as well for all of the assets I purchased from them (that aren't now deprecated, anyways). Be sure to upvote the reviews that are indicative of the real state of affairs so that they're on the front page too. That "surprise, you can't use it!" feeling after purchase needs to stop now.

 

@umutozkan
I will definitely do the same, but not yet. Unless it is easy to change your review on the asset store.

It is lunchtime in SF and Salt Lake City by now and I get the feeling that everybody at Morph3D's who could maybe provide some insight or help here is at the GDC.
I may not have sounded like it in my previous post, but I really like the MCS and would hate to see it fail (the only reason to get emotional is because one cares).

At least two people over there are aware of what is going on here. But I rather got the feeling that they where not taking this seriously enough. It almost seems like they are not aware of the S***storm potential this whole thing has and I would hate it if this situation broke their necks while they were too busy shaking hands instead of fixing their mess.
When they come back next weekend there may only be a pile of ashes left of their (and our) hopes and dreams.

I kind of would prefer to wake them up and get a proper response instead of sinking their ship already.

 

I've read through the last few pages of comments since the 1.6 release, and although I see some reference to broken BlendShapes, missing BlendShape pairs, and lots of discussion about the EULA, I don't see anyone else having the issue where all of the BlendShapes are missing from 1.6 characters. I've tried 1.6 characters on two different systems with Unity 5.4 and 5.5, using new projects, but the male and female character have no BlendShapes on any of the LOD's. I see this StreamingAssets folder has a json file and some morphs.mr files, but the ReadMe file doesn't mention anything about these. Can anyone point out what I obviously must be missing?

Thanks,
Michael

 

I think sort of reaction is a little knee jerk. Their representative has been expressing a very cooperative tone and is willing to hear all complaints and suggestions and to insure they are heard by the people who matter. Give them a chance to settle all this and see what the end result is before jumping ship and berating the product. I'm sure you would want the same consideration.

 

@Crazy-Minnow-Studio
I had the very same issue. I think it is a problem with the male base package. I managed to get the female version working at some point.

But yeah, I wasn't joking when I called this release a broken mess.

 

I agree, and I'm troubled that so often they seem to be in an impenetrable haze of lotus smoke. It's like they are convinced their program is going to be a success, and they aren't bothered by the fact that in a year and a half of having their product on the market it has never (or rarely?) worked.

While I don't like putting up negative reviews, I suppose it is the responsible thing to do.

 

It's very easy- you can do it from your own asset download list at any time, and the changes are instantaneous.

Exactly why we need to turn up the heat as fast as possible. The staffers who come to this thread imply that they're just lackeys with no real power- that was already pretty indicative of the treatment this community is getting. They can be kind as kittens, but if they can't actually help or change things, then they're just pacifiers.

That's really what seems to be the primary difference between my views on this and thplusplusx, and a few others here. I've been through enough now, taken enough of a beating, been disappointed too many times, and I'm pretty much done with it. Some people seem to be of the opinion that we should give them more leeway because of how much they want the product to succeed, whereas I'm perfectly willing now to watch it burn rather than having to deal with more BS.

That said, that TH fellow just came to this thread like a month ago, and all of his posts on the entire forum have been about MCS, so whether he's a shill or just new, I don't really give his opinions much weight. He can't be a real developer and not be pissed off over this garbage.

I still want MCS to succeed, but at this point even if they implemented every single change that we've suggested, it seems like it'll only be because we were threatening to toss them of a cliff. How bad does a developer have to be where that's the only way to get a real dialogue and see some changes?

 

To change the review is as easy as clicking the edit button and save.

I am sure the representative has good intentions, but I think their "management" should see that something is wrong. It's not just a few annoyed guys ranting at the forum.

I promise if they change their course I'll change it to 5 star and edit the review in a heart beat. (I posted the review btw)

 

Hey Everyone,

We've tracked down the issue with the M3D packages imported from the Unity Asset Store. We have every expectation that an update will be pushed today. If you need a working version right now you can (and I know this is a loaded topic right now) go and get the packages directly from the Morph store. Those packages are working. If you'd prefer to wait the UAS packages should be updated fairly soon. There should be some additional bug fixes in those packages as well.

As far as the EULA and those other issues are concerned I don't have an answer for you right now. I don't want you guys to get the impression that there are only two people aware of what is going on here. Every executive in the company is aware of what is going on.

 

Then they should probably get over here and explain themselves!

 

Hey, some feedback on the points that have hijacked the thread for the past 3 days. Fantastic. Except it's just more placating that isn't giving an answer. I understand you're just a PR guy @Morph_JN, but at this point the community needs to hear more than "I don't have an answer for you after 3 days on the most important topic right now".

I had a nice post going, was even going to try to simmer some nerves with GDC going on and try to keep people holding off until at least post GDC, but... yeah... you guys really don't deserve it. So, let loose the hounds. I'm with @Lynsander, I'll be as happy to watch this ship burn as to see it succeed. If it burns there is at least some hope that a quality asset developer will pick up the mantle and do something of the quality and support level we've come to expect in the Unity community.

Cheers on maybe getting an update out for a broken product that should have been QA'd before just pushing it out so it could build hype at GDC about a great new release.

Man I'm starting to sound bitter... *lights the torch and raises his pitchfork*

 

Here some different work-around and solution for the new morph3d update that i find , hope it help you :

1. When first importing the asset inside unity (M3DMale in that case) :
- Update to 1.6
- Drag the figure in your seem
- At first the morph script will be missing , click on "upload to importer"

- Let it work a bit after that your suppose to be ok to go


2.For importing the figure in fbx format inside Blender :
- Go in Armatures tab and check the "Automatic Bone orientation"

- After that you should have something like that :

- Select the "armature" in "pose mode" press "alt + r" to reset the rotation


Still trying to figuring out how to setup a ik rig for animation with those weird arms and legs setup will keep you updated if i do any progress

 

They can't, they're all scrambling to find new jobs.

 

I still haven't read any answer about, WHY the base models were 10$+ (maybe even 50$ what I read) and suddenly they are FREE.
Can someone explain this practice?

 

Nobody has gotten that far because you can't even save a prefab of a character without touching blend shapes, nor can you build a game with clothed MCS 1.6 characters. You're wasting your time trying to get 1.6 working right now, I know because I wasted my saturday on it myself and a few others here appeared to as well.

 

Do users who purchased through the Asset Store have access to the same assets on the Morph store?

Are you going to try to apply additional restrictions on my game because I download from your store instead of Unity's given that my purchase was through Unity?

 

That's a valid point. It should have started at $10, back when Lite was released for free. The early adopters for $10 would feel a little less burned, I know when I throw $10 at a PBR texture pack I feel better about supporting the indie developer than I do about neccessarily getting one or two really good textures I want to use in the pack. At $10, I picked up AltTrees, it's a gamble. At $10 I'll forfeit a couple of my 6 coffees a day and toss the dice.

So, for $10, I wouldn't be among those griping the most, I'd grumble a bit and move on, probably be even less vocal than I am now as a user who did obtain it for free. I'm here on behalf of ensuring practices like this don't become common place. As much for M3D as for anyone else out there seeing that the community will not stand for this. I'll light the torch and help burn the ship to keep Unity the quality community it is today.

Those who spent $50 on it, I'm sorry but this comes back to paying way too much for something that was purely on promises, while having a lite version to clearly see the product was not worth the price. People MUST use their buying power properly.

As to the reason it went free, that had to do with celebration of a partnership with some VR company. As to why it's still free, or if it'll remain free for an extended period based on a lot of what's happened over the last few days, it's hard to say. Their entire business model looks like abstract art to me.

 

DAZ business model. The real goal is not to sell base model, but to sell recycled DAZ outfit and props.
https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/65092

http://www.daz3d.com/shadow-man-bundle

 

Yep I agree.... and are there any plans to pacify those that paid for the base models for nothing... store discounts etc. (if anyone is still interested in this asset)

 

I wanted to add that we are currently finalizing something for our early adopters. Any one who paid full price for the asset should be hearing from us soon. Our plan is to make sure that you get more than your value's worth for making the purchase.

Yes we are finalizing something right now for those who paid full price.

 

I don't know if the higher management gives you those answers, but:
"Full Price"? Who is this under your definition?

Those who paid the first price before several reductions?
Everyone who paid anything for the base models?

I know you can't decide anything, but every response that was posted until today was somehow squishy.

 

In an attempt to sound a bit less bitter, that's good news @Morph_JN, glad to hear those who adopted early will still be recognized.
Though I might recommend you keep an open forum of communication with them here, make sure they will feel it's worthwhile compensation in THEIR eyes. Right now you're looking to compensate them with what is likely some free base models and/or clothings (or $50 credit on your M3D store, or whatever you do to try and balance the equation), but you haven't addressed the elephant in the room that may have those same early adopters choosing a different path, where these reparations are not going to matter if they can't build the game they were planning with MCS at all.

 

I received an "Apology Credit" to my Morph3d account in response to my multiple 1.6 bug tickets (which I've never used aside from submitting support tickets and trying out the 1.6 beta)

As I mentioned a few pages back, I don't expect my current game to be affected by your new EULA restrictions but even then I'm still very wary of getting roped into them.

So what I'm trying to say here, is that if your plan to thank those who paid full price involves giving them credit to a store that will force them into the additional EULA restrictions.... You may actually do more harm than good.

I paid $50 for the base Female Model, $10 for the male, and a bunch on content packs (I really DO like the idea of what you guys are doing and want to support it and see you succeed) so I'm very curious to see what happens on this front.

(Oh yeah I grabbed the minotaur and reptilian creatures while they were on sale because hey I might find a use for them eventually and like I said I want to support what you guys are doing, but now they are entirely unusable alongside 1.6 assuming it even worked in the first place)

 

Oh, that's why they are at the GDC? It all makes sense now...

And you know what, I don't even mind that it is initially from Daz3d. That stuff actually looks great. And if they get that working in Unity, I will be a grateful customer.
But not if the try to screw me over with some shady licensing practices or invalidating my purchases on a whim.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see this ship swim than sink (I know how tough a release can be). But only under fair terms and conditions.

And they are currently really not handling this well...
The latest responses basically are none at all, again. Still just empty promises and excuses. And again only on a fraction of the whole set of issues.

 

Credit you received was for something else and not remotely related to what I mentioned in my post above.

 

For those who want to download MCS 1.6 through the Unity Asset Store we are still planning on releasing an updated package later today. In the meantime here are some steps you can take to get the current version working.

1. Import the MCS Male or Female (or both) into your project.
2. Close the unity editor (sounds stupid but it is important).
3. Re-open the project.
4. Right click on the M3DFemale and click Re-import.
5. Do the same for the M3DMale

This should get the figure working and you should also have access to all of the blendshapes.

 

What about being unable to make a prefab? will it be in some sort of quick fix?(the update mentioned above?)

 

Does this fix the issue where the character bodies are invisible while clothed after building?

 

@go1dfish nope didn't find a fix for that , but your character turning invisible , for me i lose material on the "LOD 0" 0.o?

 

Okay, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but on a positive note, people should check out the new wishlist sale... It's going to empty my wallet! Some fantastic 25% off deals on a lot of really good assets.

 

I paid full price(Male and female), and for many packs, and will see where things go from here.

We will see what comes, just know the most tantalizing aspect for me has always been the art tools, and what I could do with them, and freedom that possibility would allow.

Edit:

You truly have an opportunity here to be to character creation, what Gaia is to terrains(if one put the same hard work, professionalism, and dedication to quality, structured, and functional tool creation with an eye towards a high standard.), put the right tools in the right hands, and see what truly inspired creations could emerge, while maybe missing out on the income of created outfits and armor, there is still the gain of recognition as a "go to" asset, and that is truly the path to success.

 

See: https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/r...s-male-and-female.355675/page-34#post-2974137 for what I've been able to figure out.

My thinking is that the prefab saving bug is highly related to the bug I have where my built characters go invisible in the built game when they have clothes on. The same bug expressing itself in different ways. That's just a guess though.

 

@go1dfish yup that it's , seem like you need to add cloth a run time ...

 

That would be a good step in the right direction and personally, I would appreciate it as I have bought the full version of both on Unity store along with outfits. I am looking forward to seeing the product, the company and the future get to a positive place and direction.