Messages in this topic - RSS

Home ? Publishing Your Video ? Watermark: new terms of use

pages: 1 2 3 | Please log in or register, then complete your details to create a post.
10/04/2013 12:50:32

DreekoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
Dreeko
Posts: 1258
This is only the first method of recouping some cash that Mucizu has introduced. I'm sure The powers that be will change, alter and introduce new methods in time to suit the company and their users alike.


Because If the price point is right, people will pay and Muvizu will thrive

If it isn't, they won't and that will be a sad day for both users and developers alike.

D
permalink
10/04/2013 13:04:04

piquet
piquet
Posts: 12
The other alternative is to put a price on assets, also, take a commission on third party uploads. Sell 'improvements' to the software, upgrades, enhancements etc. But please...not exorbitant charges, make them affordable and you will sell more.

Give the software for free but without all the packs, just a starter pack to allow a movie to be made and to whet the appetite.
permalink
10/04/2013 13:16:47

toonaramaMuvizu mogulExperimental user
toonarama
Posts: 661
Dreeko wrote:
This is only the first method of recouping some cash that Mucizu has introduced.


Dreeko - do you have an alternative "adult" version of the software?
permalink
10/04/2013 13:25:09

toonaramaMuvizu mogulExperimental user
toonarama
Posts: 661
I think that the pricing structure will scare off a lot of potential users.
When I made my Toy Dolls video i got nothing for it and Vince was kind enough to allow me to produce a video with no watermark free of charge as the band wanted to use it for promotional purposes (it even made Spanish TV!).
So the band got a very good deal - paying nowt.
If i had said that it would cost them £100 then they might still have gone ahead with it as it would still be a very very cheap video for them but with the new pricing structure and the way it works on the raw output rather than the finished product it would have cost thousands and there was no way they could afford that.

I am sure there are large businesses out there which could afford those prices (and maybe those are the ones that Digimania want to attract) so I guess it really depends on whether Digimania wanted a share of the "small time" commercial market or not
permalink
10/04/2013 13:50:42

DreekoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
Dreeko
Posts: 1258
Toonerama! No, I don't have an adult version of the software( whatever that is! Sounds a bit saucy to me!) I downloaded the new version the same as everyone else on the day of release.
Piquet! You put forward some interesting pricing alternatives. Hopefully as I said previously there will be a variety of purchasing options available to us over time.

In the meantime I'm going to concentrate on making movies as I did before and will worry about logos and payments etc when Disney or Dreamworks ( im not fussy!)come knocking on my door.

Cheers
D
permalink
10/04/2013 13:52:54

toonaramaMuvizu mogulExperimental user
toonarama
Posts: 661
Dreeko it's just that your post mentioned "mucizu"
permalink
10/04/2013 14:01:35

DreekoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
Dreeko
Posts: 1258
toonarama wrote:
Dreeko it's just that your post mentioned "mucizu"


Oh right! Never noticed. I'm making all my posts today from my phone and the old eyes ain't what they were!
You may have hit upon an idea for a Muvizu expansion( phnar phnar!) pack though with your adult version. Moderating the movies created with it may prove a headache for the devs mind you lol!
permalink
10/04/2013 14:07:23

gimmick
gimmick
Posts: 179
As many users, I use an external editing software. So when I make a 1 minute movie, I use around 5 minutes of rendering:
1/ I render multiples cameras
2/ Some final renderings are made many times because of bugs in codecs.

So for me, the price of a minute HD would be around 15 x 5 = £75 or 30x15 = £150
permalink
10/04/2013 14:07:24

mos6507
mos6507
Posts: 34
Muvizu could pursue an asset-based business-model like iCLone and Daz3D if they really wanted to. They've been talking about allowing for custom characters for years now, but it never happened. Their architecture just isn't as extensible as the others. If they had tackled this problem, then we might have seen a much more varied set of assets available for Muvizu, which would have expanded its appeal.
Valve also just opened up a workshop for Source Filmmaker, but there are currently no monetization options. With a small team like Muvizu, they have to leverage 3rd parties. Being able to port over static props isn't enough.
permalink
10/04/2013 16:20:52

urbanlamb
urbanlamb
(Account inactive)
Posts: 1796
piquet wrote:
Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.




It is pricey and I agree they need to change their thinking on it. I dont agree you have to call people names and generally do the bnet flame thing. If you were to do that in real life you likely would have had someone hang up on you if it was a phone conversation or be ignored or asked to leave.

If you came into my office and said these things I would have you escorted away and the door slammed in your face. There is no need to bare your teeth and start brow beating people and calling them names. In this case they strike me as quite the opposite.

Its clear they might not have done a great deal of market research before launching this price plan. They did ask for input and people were honest who were reasonable about trying to put on a price tag they didnt seem to take the input that seriously though or maybe were in a rush to launch the thing. I dont anticipate they will be making a great many sales with this structure and they will notice that and rethink things. For me its business as usual unfortunately the project i had wanted to move into muvizu that was sitting on the sidelines however will be done in iclone because although it is a commercial project there is no way that prices are cost effective and will turn any sort of profit.

At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles and unfortunately wont be seen as viable for most things. Lets hope that changes

http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2499-to-the-community-at-large.aspx
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013
permalink
10/04/2013 16:50:37

mos6507
mos6507
Posts: 34
There is a phrase, at least in the US. "The customer is always right".
What that means, unfortunately, is that businesses need to have thick skins and tolerate being "called names". Corporations may be considered persons, but they don't have feelings that need to be protected. Yes, it's a double-standard, but that's how it's supposed to be done. You don't respond to customer complaints (which can get very nasty and personal) by doing the equivalent of the proverbial "hanging up the phone". That is really terrible PR. Negative feedback is a symptom. You have to disregard the ad-hominem and look for the substance of the complaint.
I know this full well from my experiences with Xtranormal, who, six months ago or so, when the going got rough, saw fit to completely shut down its forums and start aggressively censoring Facebook of anything too overtly critical. If you behave that way, it paints a portrait of a company that is more interested in sanitizing its public image than actually improving user-satisfaction. Since then, they've lost just about all their techies and are really nothing more than a zombie-company. That's what happens when companies have a top-down "my way or the highway" attitude. I'm NOT saying Muvizu is like this, but you never ever want to even come close to operating that way. You have to be willing to pay attention to criticism and not circle the wagons.
The fact of the matter is that Muvizu IS a business, and they've been developing the software for over 3 years now, which is a long time for a startup like this. There comes a time where the vested interests expect to see a return, otherwise they will fold. You have to begin to assess whether the expectations that existed at the project's inception have been met, and if not, why? Technology marches on. For instance, lots of attention has shifted towards the (free) Source Filmmaker recently. That didn't exist (at least not officially) when Muvizu started. You have to keep reassessing the landscape and make adjustments.
However, you wind up confusing users if your business model and TOS keeps changing too much. That's again, what happened with XN. It was too much of a moving target. Ultimately XN committed the final insult, which was to completely prohibit anyone from making money with XN videos, which is far more grievous than charging per-minute as Muvizu is now doing. For creative people to invest their mind-share over a long period of time in a technology, changes like this can feel like they are having the rug pulled out from under them. So the better a company is able to anticipate where things are headed and isn't constantly zigging and zagging, the happier customers are likely to be.
I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but crowdsourcing is peaking right now. If you have an ambitious project you want to do with machinima, there's no better time to try to get it funded than now. What's the worst that could happen? People turn their nose up at the minimalism of the graphics. But it's worth a shot. So how these companies deal with people trying to make the leap to getting their projects funded is extremely topical.
permalink
10/04/2013 17:11:38

urbanlamb
urbanlamb
(Account inactive)
Posts: 1796
mos6507 wrote:

What that means, unfortunately, is that businesses need to have thick skins and tolerate being "called names". .



lol glad I live in Canada then.

Anyhow lets hope they fix this quickly. :/
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013
permalink
10/04/2013 17:25:12

DreekoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
Dreeko
Posts: 1258
Great post Mos6507!
edited by Dreeko on 10/04/2013
permalink
10/04/2013 23:02:20

piquet
piquet
Posts: 12
urbanlamb wrote:
piquet wrote:
Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.




It is pricey and I agree they need to change their thinking on it. I dont agree you have to call people names and generally do the bnet flame thing. If you were to do that in real life you likely would have had someone hang up on you if it was a phone conversation or be ignored or asked to leave.

If you came into my office and said these things I would have you escorted away and the door slammed in your face. There is no need to bare your teeth and start brow beating people and calling them names. In this case they strike me as quite the opposite.

Its clear they might not have done a great deal of market research before launching this price plan. They did ask for input and people were honest who were reasonable about trying to put on a price tag they didnt seem to take the input that seriously though or maybe were in a rush to launch the thing. I dont anticipate they will be making a great many sales with this structure and they will notice that and rethink things. For me its business as usual unfortunately the project i had wanted to move into muvizu that was sitting on the sidelines however will be done in iclone because although it is a commercial project there is no way that prices are cost effective and will turn any sort of profit.

At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles and unfortunately wont be seen as viable for most things. Lets hope that changes

http://www.muvizu.com/Forum/topic2499-to-the-community-at-large.aspx
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013



By your own comment "At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles....." Yes, its called greed.
Ripoff, in case you don't know the word, is a company charging highly inflated, and unjustified prices that exceed the actual value of the product or service. See item one 'Greed'
Nasty because not only is it mean to users it also shows lack of consideration for them or any understanding of the market value of their own product.
Controlling because they don't want to sell the software.

Calling names? I don't think so, it's just stating the obvious....without being subtle.
edited by piquet on 10/04/2013
permalink
10/04/2013 23:19:27

urbanlamb
urbanlamb
(Account inactive)
Posts: 1796
piquet wrote:



By your own comment "At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles....." Yes, its called greed.
Ripoff, in case you don't know the word, is a company charging highly inflated prices that exceed the actual value.
Nasty because not only is it mean to users it also shows lack of consideration for them or any understanding of the market value of their own product.
Controlling because they don't want to sell the software.

Calling names? I don't think so, it's just stating the obvious....without being subtle.



I actually have to suffer some sort of financial impact before I would start to be so "direct" anyhow basicaly what muvizu has done is maintain their status quo by not releasing a pro version and by placing such a price tag on renders. They have not changed anything (yet). I am still creating the same series I was last week and its still not costing me a dime. The price is up front and its outrageously high but they are not putting me in a position of being unable to continue on my path by withdrawing their free use package *cough* even though the new release is well unusable at present lol. So if you feel that your being fair so be it. Someone has to burn me in some way before I resort to showing my temper I dont even feel slightly toasted. Hence the "name calling" but if it makes you feel better feel free . I only know what I would do (as a person who has had to earn a living and is about to retire) if you rake me over the coals in a situation like this I would dismiss you as being something of a flamer who likely is never satisfied. I could be wrong but I do know that I am producing the same video I was last week and its not costing me a dime. What the issue is though is that for commercial use their prices are unrealistic but since I am not in a position to have to pay them money to continue I dont really have the right to be so "honest" because no money has exchanged hands nor will it be exchanging hands anytime in the near future with said plan. Yet I am still happily sitting here using their software like i was last week
edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013
permalink
10/04/2013 23:46:07

mystoMuvizu mogulExperimental user
mysto
Posts: 471
After reading all of the comments I wanted to "chime in" with my thoughts about things.

Honestly, having the Muvizu watermark on the clips I've made has never really bothered me. I guess my only "complaint" would be that I think the old Muvizu watermark was cooler looking then the new one. If by some chance somewhere down the road I need to create videos without the watermark I'll just deal with it then. Until that time I plan on "cranking out" animations with Muvizu.

IMHO Muvizu is one damn fine piece of software. The folks at Muvizu do listen to their users and I suspect that all of this will be ironed out in the future.
permalink
11/04/2013 01:06:55

fazz68
fazz68
(Account inactive)
Posts: 767
i agree
permalink
11/04/2013 01:53:53

WozToonsExperimental user
WozToons
Posts: 494
What He Said

Muvizu is pay by choice not pay to use. Something to be remembered.
edited by WozToons on 11/04/2013
permalink
11/04/2013 10:52:00

piquet
piquet
Posts: 12
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't our computer do the rendering? Soooo in actuality, muvizu want to charge us £5 a minute to use OUR computer, OUR electricity and OUR time!

On a more serious note.....On their 'commercial use' link at the bottom of the page.....

"Muvizu:Play may only be exploited for commercial use once you have paid to remove the watermark. Don’t worry, this is an easy, in-app purchase. We call the activity of paying for watermark-free footage a ‘Content Upgrade.’ Once you’ve got your watermark-free footage then you have our permission to exploit it for commercial use."

This reads, in my opinion, as a one off payment. 'Content upgrade' assumes the same. Nowhere is it stated that the content upgrade will need to be purchased per movie.
edited by piquet on 11/04/2013
permalink
11/04/2013 11:07:42

MrDrWho13Muvizu mogulExperimental user
MrDrWho13
Posts: 2220
piquet wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't our computer do the rendering? Soooo in actuality, muvizu want to charge us £5 a minute to use OUR computer, OUR electricity and OUR time!

On a more serious note.....On their 'commercial use' link at the bottom of the page.....

"Muvizu:Play may only be exploited for commercial use once you have paid to remove the watermark. Don’t worry, this is an easy, in-app purchase. We call the activity of paying for watermark-free footage a ‘Content Upgrade.’ Once you’ve got your watermark-free footage then you have our permission to exploit it for commercial use."

This reads, in my opinion, as a one off payment. 'Content upgrade' assumes the same. Nowhere is it stated that the content upgrade will need to be purchased per movie.
edited by piquet on 11/04/2013


Ok, what you need to do is send a message to one of the staff, (maybe Jamie?) And ask them to make it clearer that you pay for each movie.

Please note that at the pre-launch party, they mentioned that they bought the game engine for half a million pounds and they need to find a way to make a bit of money off their free program.
edited by MrDrWho13 on 11/04/2013
permalink
pages: 1 2 3 | Please log in or register, then complete your details to create a post.

Home ? Publishing Your Video ? Watermark: new terms of use