Attached Link: http://secure.daz3d.com/shop.php?op=itemdetails&item=1981

What's wrong with the upgrade price? I believe that if you are a Platinum Club member you save 30%, making it, what, $40?

Oh, do you mean the issue of Pro versus the basic version of Mimic? If so, I see what you are saying. Sorry if I missed that.

Yep. PRO upgraders are kind of getting gipped, but it's nothing new in the software industry I must admit. Some companies handle it better than others. DAZ is usually pretty good about such things, so it's a little surprising.

Anyone know about the story. I've gotten this from someone about the bug fixes that were promised (i.e. -- no delivery on the promise). Any comments? The following is a quote: happen to be one of the people who has 2Pro. So the feature differences are not that significant. What is significant is the fixes they added into it. Having now talked to a few people that bought 3 already, they have all said that it's nearly identicle to 2Pro but without the bugs. Like I said in my original post, if this was truely a new product, I wouldn't mind having to pay for the "newer version", but it is simply the same thing without all the bugs that were promised to be fixed in a patch. Now it's rereleased as yet another thing I have to shell out a lot of cash for to get to work. And THAT is where I see the problem. I wouldn't care if this was CL, Daz, Microsoft, or Sixus based software. If you release a product, realize it's got some problems, promise to release a fix for it for those that already own the software, THEN turn around and say "Oh, by the way, instead fixing our screw ups, we've just given you a new version to pay for", then it's as I said, bait and switch. In the grand scheme of things, it's not like I'm having to buy a new $3000 version of Maya, or an updated version of Renderman for $9000. But when I only spent about $150 on the original product, that's HALF the original purchase price just to get fixes that they should have taken care of during alpha and beta testing. It's a matter of business ethics. Here's a prime example. HER was released. A few bugs were found, and a few improvements were made. They released HER 1.5. They didn't make you pay for the fix. They simply rereleased it with the changes. Now granted, that's a free product, so now, look at any of their other stuff that they have made additions/corrections/tweeks to. Nobody had to rebuy Designate Alpha to get the 1.5 updates. Nobody had to pay for a second copy of Scian to get the update. That's just good business. Guess I'm just getting sick of seeing "the man" get rich off from releasing flawed products then charging for fixing the flaws. Microsoft may be doing the ASA for future OSes, but ya know what, it won't matter if you bought the version outright, or paid the ASA fee, you will still be able to download your updates, service releases, and hot fixes for free during the "life time" of the software, which by MS standards is 4 years. It's been less than 4 months since Daz said they were going to release a fix for a product not even a year old, and here we are... (sorry, had to edit it for some spelling errors... I'm so dizzy I got cixelsyd on a few words) _________________