On behalf of the RPublishing division of Bondware, I'd like to apologize to the customers and contributing merchants affected by the recent problems discovered with the Renda model. Some of the issues uncovered have put RPublishing in potential violation of the Renderosity Marketplace policies with regard to copyright and respect for the intellectual property of other companies. I am working with the RPublishing group to make sure we do the right thing for all parties affected. See details below: As you may know, RPublishing contracted out the mesh creation, morphing, and rigging for this model with the understanding that all work would be original. Unfortunately, as we learned later, this was not the case. While the Renda mesh is 100% original, there have been issues identified surrounding the morphs and joint parameters. Regardless, RPublishing should have been more diligent in verifying the originality of the work submitted and takes full responsibility for the issues that have surfaced. I have spoken with Dan Farr at DAZ this morning outlining the situation and mutually exploring the best approach and outcome for DAZ, RPublishing, and all buyers of Renda products. He has been great to work with given the circumstances. He offered a possible solution that would involve encoding the Victoria 3 figure into the product, thereby requiring that a person have V3 to use the product. This would allow the continued marketing of Renda and related products while protecting DAZ's rights. This seems to be the best approach at this point and the RPublishing group is preparing an update to the Renda packages which does that. This update should be available later today. For buyers who need the V3 product, it can be obtained at the link below: http://www.daz3d.com/shop.php?op=itemdetails&item=1098&cat=8 Obviously, this makes Renda a different product so the Renderosity MP will refund purchases for anyone that does not want the product in the new configuration. All previous buyers will be emailed and informed of this option. Tim Choate President Bondware Inc

.

Hopefully, a positive outcome to a very sticky solution. Tim, this is said with all due respect. The threads that pertained to this product also revealed that the product was knowingly released with QA issues. I hope that Renderosity takes it to heart that this has shaken consumer confidence a bit. I respectfully ask that you also consider and advise us of solutions that address this issue as well.

Glad it's come to a reasonable solution for both parties. I will be removing Renda from my machine as she is tainted goods and I won't mess with her. It might be a good idea to have your marketplace staff listen to merchants in the future. Much of this (meaning the fiasco over QA) could have been atleast avoided had the inital release been postponed as so many suggested.

Message edited on: 06/29/2005 14:36

.

.

.

.

Too little, too late.

Not that I needed another female figure (human figure for that matter), but I do like to support new products (thus I did get Max). I wonder if this does prove that currently Poser really has no need for another generic female figure that does not introduce something new. Apollo does approach things differently thus making it a viable product. Maybe RPublishing could fund something new, instead of a rehash of an older figure. (DAZ has said they are working on a new Vicky.) I think I will be passing on this figure.

RTF encoding spells the death of a product. its like selling a Ford, but with the stipulation that you have to own a Chevy or it wont start. as someone who signed on to this project in good faith but -- through QC issues, this copyright fiasco and the impending crippled Renda market due to the RTF encoding -- has now wasted their time entirely, all i would like to know is if Renderosity intends to compensate those 10 merchants who it approached to sign on to this project in April. we are left with failed products that would have sold exponentially more had the release went smoothly, honestly and professionally, and tainted reputations for having unwittingly endorsed a faulty and infringing product. this 'very exciting opportunity with RPublishing (Bondware)' has been an ordeal from start to abrupt finish, and has left us with nothing but a bad taste in our mouths.

It's good to hear that this incident has come to an end and that now there is an official position regarding Renda. But putting this aside I want to ask, what could be the purpose of continue selling a figure which is just like V3 and requires her to work? It doesn't make much sense since Renda has nothing new to give. The best move honestly, is pull Renda of the MP and rework her to make her a interesting product, instead a dead from start figure.

bookmark.

Ditto on the listen next time.A product was released with known problems..(meaning before you found out about the violation).Bad form.

:

...

..

I say Pull Renda, start fresh and make her what you originally intended RENDEROSITY'S FLAGSHIP FIGURE,and something to be proud of. the way it stands now she is merely an addition to V3 and V3 has enough additions IMHO. and how about the next time RPublishing sets out to make a figure that THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN ASKING FOR,you actually listen to what the community wants and let the community in on her work in progress,like almost every other figure creator does,take in some feedback and suggestions on what is needed in a new and innovative figure,and you may be alot more successful in creating it. The3dZone

I would pull the item as well. It never seemed very popular and people did nothing but complain about it's poor quality anyway. If people liked her I'd say differently. Why not cut your losses and just start over? -ScottA

I have to admit, starting over is probably the best thing to do for a figure that was hoped to be a flagship figure. It may be too late for Renda, though, as it would mean going back to square one. More than likely, that would also mean using a different person or team on the figure ... it appears that those who worked on this figure may not have had previous experience in creating a whole new figure. It almost appears as if toward the end he/she/they realized that more was bitten off than one could chew.

Here, here...3dZone! Excellent advice, bar none! :)

I agree with The3dZone. a new addon is not needed.

.

I am glad that RO and Daz was able to come to an agreement on this but... however... for me, I will more than likely be removing her from my computer. I don't want anything to do with "damaged goods". Now, if RO creates another ORIGINAL (and for real this time) figure, I'd be more than happy to help support it. :) And yes, RO really does need to listen to their merchants and the community when they are told there is a problem instead of going on and passing it anyway. I've had products be held just for having a simple wording wrong in my readme file. To go ahead and pass her the way she was, I don't understand that.

bookmark

Bookmark

It was very childish for RO to release her in such a condition and now the adult thing to do would be to just discard her and start over with an ORIGINAL figure. 'nuf said by me here on the subject.

Bookmark

Bookmark

In response to this whole matter I felt it may be appropriate to say something at this point. In the last month I have gone from being in an utter state of excitement to get to work on a new female figure, to an indescribably shitty position to watch this whole deal unfold the way it has. I was very proud of the work I did for Renda. Albeit my distaste for her mapping, I did the best possibly job I could with the time I had. I made a report concerning several issues for Renda, but none contained information regarding morph dials, or channels, or otherwise suspect craftsmanship in the figure itself. And it shouldnt have. It was not the task I was appointed to do, and it was not where my focus was. As for any suggestion that "we" initial content developers may have known about any discrepancies beforehand, you couldn't be more off the mark. Its absolutely absurd to make a suggestion. Period! Everyone of the content providers signed a legal NDA and with the fullest of confidence that what we were being asked to provide was indeed for solid and a 100% original figure. Once again, I am proud of the work I DID, and would expect every other merchant who made content for her or any other figure to be just as deligent. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chris~

I believe that all of the inital content creators did a splendid job on Renda's content,and most of that inital content did not require her to be in full working order. I know that I work on plenty of textures where the model is still in the rigging stage,all that's required is a finished map to do that job. and I'm not a morph maker,but I would assume that all that BH needed for his add on would be the object itself,so ofcoarse the modeling would have to be final. so I see no reason that any of you should have questioned her rigging,maybe you didn't even know that it was complete yet.you were not asked to be beta testers. correct me if I'm wrong. -The3dZone

Well at least the base V3 is free for the RTE encoding, but still. Who will want to buy from RPublishing? And it still doesn't address the fact that she came out without proper testing.

bookmarked

sigh well i have to agree with a few people here on so many things.. First and foremost. I would say pull her.. end of story.. she is tainted now.. why should we pay so much money for an "original" character but we have to have V3 .. wasn't the point of this to have a 100% original character one that is NOT dependant on another ??? Seems a mute point now to fix her up and re-release her.. The content providers spent months working on items for her and now i feel so sorry for them all for putting in SOO much work on a character that turned out to be NOT what they had originally signed up for. The way she was released was horrible to say the least. We merchants are not allowed to have something in the store with even ONE problem, much less a ton of problems that were STATED to YOU, yet YOU released her KNOWING there were issues with her.. She was NOT tested correctly.. you should have signed on 11 people.. the 11th being someone who knows about character creation to look at her CLOSELY .. They only wayI would be doing anything with her.. is if she herself is free.. and her morph pack is free.. after all of this.. and even then.. ya know.. I just don't think I can bring myself to do any of that .. NOT with how this was brought out.. how she was released.. and the LACK of care Renderosity used with releasing her. and my last little bit.. to the original content providers.. my sincere apologies go out to you, and hope that renderosity works something out with you for your time and trouble.

..

Seems a mute point now to fix her up and re-release her.<< I agree this figure is DOA. and to blackhearted's point ,its worse its like having a brand new FREE ford and being asked to pay full retail for a chevy that requires the presence of your free ford to function.. Ohh and the term is "Moot "point ;-)

Agree that Renda should be pulled, and the merchants who supported her compensated somehow. (How about giving them Rosity's cut of their sales for a month or three?)

Renda will never be Rosity's flagship figure now. Take Anton up on his offer. Release a truly original, all-new figure...and tell us who made her. And don't name her "Renda."

slightly off-topic... err, something seems to be messed up, for me at least. i keep getting a group of about 12 ebots sent to me every few minutes telling me that someone responded to the old thread (the one that was locked). has the names of the last dozen or so posters, and every time i delete them a couple minutes later they are resent. anyone else have something wierd like that going on? perhaps its because im the last poster before it was locked? or is the rosity ebot on the fritz?

Anton would do a super job with a completely original figure. :)

Im glad you were able to resolve this quickly and to the satisfaction of all affected parties. On the figure itself my suggestion would be to remove her completely and issue refunds as already suggested here. It is obvious ther will be no attempts to develop for her after this. Id like to express concern tho for the developers of additional content that were affected by this. In my opinion you should find way to fairly compensate them for the work performed. They went into this in good faith, and do not have to share a responsability that belongs to the publisher alone. As a footnote id like to suggest it would be in the managements best interest to take into account merchants advice, concerns and views. This has proven that, had it been so, you would have been saved a lot of embaressment and damage. We DO have a common goal, the sucess of this enterprise. Regards SkyNet

bh :-p It is just that those EBOTS.. LOVE YA hun :) heh

It would be a terrific opprotuinty for everyone if a new, unique, original looking female figure is created by Renderosity. I hope Rendo does not give up on their original concept. Steady on. Stiff upper lip. cheerio lululee

<u>wolf359</u> - "and to blackhearted's point ,its worse its like having a brand new FREE ford and being asked to pay full retail for a chevy that requires the presence of your free ford to function.."

Actually, it's more like buying a Yugo that requires a free Ferrari to function;)

Having been burned for around 40k even though I had a rock solid contract with a 50% compensation fee in the event the project failed, I can commiserate with the merchants that got tangled up in this fiasco. That being said, I just have to ask. Since Rosity and the PTB have NEVER listened to the merchants and gone ahead and done their own thing, why did you think this time would be different? I mean you had warning. Many of the merchants have said they had questions, pointed out flaws and such with the standard Shut up, we have our own agenda stock answer from the PTB. What made you think this would be any different? Additionally, while I have absolutely nothing against 3rd party characters, historically these have not done well, even with a LARGE amount of backing from heavy hitting merchants. Again I ask, why did you think this would be different? If it sounds too good to be true, typically, that is because it is. While the concept of Renda is a good one, did you really expect Rosity to pull it off? At the very least they were using YOU to market their product, counting on YOUR customers that YOU worked hard to acquire, so that their product would sell. In short, they USED you. Why didnt you get contracts? It is standard practice to get a contract in case a project fails to recover YOUR expenses. In this case, considering the source of the publishing house, I would not have done anything without ink and hard signatures and a legally binding contract. While Rosity has covered their asses and perhaps taken a loss, what is the next step for the merchants who have taken a hard hit? They have to somehow repair their relationship with their customers. Is Rosity going to gouge them yet again by refunding sales on their items now that Renda has obviously been tarnished? Most of these people spent a goodly amount of time producing products for this Greek tragedy, so is Rosity just going to smile and them and say Sorry, Tough Luck there.? Aside from damaging their reputation (yeah, I know, Rosity has a reputation to damage?) They have seriously hurt any upcoming original characters with their usual disregard to those of us in the trenches making money for them. The repercussions from this will affect merchants from all brokerages for a long time.

...

The repercussions from this will affect merchants from all brokerages for a long time. Maybe not all ... but this incident has definitely shed doubt on this marketplace for certain. New Poser artists may have a tough time of it now.

.

In short, they USED you. Why didnt you get contracts? It is standard practice to get a contract in case a project fails to recover YOUR expenses. In this case, considering the source of the publishing house, I would not have done anything without ink and hard signatures and a legally binding contract<<<<<. Pardon me but being a merchant here is not the same as being a contracted freelance artist. as a merchant in the poser market we essentially have an open invitation to create products/content for anyposer figure and any potential income from such efforts is purely speculative at best. the fact that RR approached specific individuals does not mean that there was some guarantee of income from these products.

im not going to be held responsible for this. as a merchant, working with other peoples products in the MP, you cant realistically sit there and run every single one under the microscope before you start working on it. wed be spending 99% of our time examining, investigating and testing and 1% actually working on my products. ive learned my lesson, im not going to be on any initial launch again. ill sit back and see how things go, and if im satisfied with the products progress then ill add my support. Well, I think the apology is a good start. Also, RTF encoded figures are actually viable. Look at supermodel Vicky (both the free version and the selling version). What is really happening is that Renda is turning into a product like David -- which did just fine. Time for a deep breath, a lot of patience and a good look at the product itself and the alternatives. Sorry about the guy who was guaranteed 40K -- I hope things work out for him.

Boy! This is interesting! You can now get an RTE encoded V3 requiring the original, that has posing and morph problems! All for over $50 for the complete package! Or you can just get V3 for free (which you'd have to do anyway to decode Renda), and get her morphs for less than $20, and have a much better figure to start with. This doesn't solve the problems with Renda. All it does is stop Daz from suing the 'sity until it's eyes bleed. And the 'sity still is going to sell her? This isn't good for the customers here. This isn't good for the people who made 3rd party additions for her. And it leaves her in the MP here for the unsuspecting to get her. A lot of people come here to buy, and never get to the forums to see the problems that the product has. Pull her. Give the money back to the people who bought her. Give some compensation to the vendors who made something for her thinking she was going to be quality work supported by the 'sity. I don't know what little it'll cost the 'sity to do this, but they should for the goodwill factor alone. It can't be much on sales. And they should be getting the cash they paid on the contract to develope her back.

..