Quote -
With very high poly count models, one can only morph in the Z direction.

that's not true.  not only do i own tons of morphs for "high" poly count models (not very high compared to pro meshes, but high for here), i've made several.  i had no problem whatsoever morphing in all 3 dimensions.  what tools are you using to make your morphs?

Quote - With Lower Poly models it is easyer to morph in the X,Y,Z .

also untrue for most.  lots of low poly models are not supported by morph artists because they are too low poly.   i know because i've requested some in the past.  i've also had problems myself morphing low poly figures.  in point of fact, if you don't have the polygons, you simply cannot make certain surface changes.  a single polygon can't bend in the middle, let alone bend in lots of different directions.  low poly count imposes a lot of restrictions on what you can do and how.

Quote - just try  to drop V'4's breasts for some 2-3". Just to make them at least" look" real. Good luck.

i've done this with no problem at all.  i use Posermatic's NGM for V4 which achieves much more realistic results than my own with no problem at all.  i haven't used Posermatic's NBS for V4, but i have for V3, which is an even more high poly mesh, and it works beautifully.  and i've just recently seen a very realistic breast morph in the gallery of one of the artists i follow

Quote - Some like black chocolate, some like white.

I morph a lot, and prefer the lower poly models over anything else.

which is very true, fine and really understandable.   but it doesn't prove that higher poly count isn't needed for certain morphs.  it proves that you don't create morphs that need it.  a very big difference.  just because you don't use a feature doesn't mean the need for that feature is just hype.

Quote - Also, since "Smooth polygons" was introduced, (and it works very well BTW, that extra , ultra high poly count is actually no loner justified.
it is more a selling point than anything else.

that's not really true, either.  it only works well on models designed to work with it well, just as subsurfacing only works well on models designed to work with it well.  and even then, both have their limits.  both methods just smooth.  they do not add detail.  if you want, for instance, a more complex shape compared to what you have, you might need more polygons.  and having boosted smooth polygons above 120 for Posette and still had renders that were problematic to me, i'd say it really depends on the mesh and its topology.  smooth polygons does not in anyway approach the quality of actual subsurfacing, in my experience and personal opinion.

the amount of polygons makes a big difference in terms of a lot of very vital performance issues when it comes to how figures are used by most Poser users.  do you really think everyone else should be held to your way of working?

Quote - What do you do with 500 poly's in the ears?? And then cover them with hair???

you're kidding, right?  last time i saw a survey, the most popular type of Poser render was fantasy.  the most popular fantasy subject is a pretty girl with long, pointy ears.  most of the lower poly Poser figures have so few polys in their ears, unmorphed they still look blocky.  i've personally played with morphs on V4 that had problems with the polygon limits of her ears. and i didn't approach, say, Rebelmommy's typical size.  and let's not forget the furry contingent that likes to make animal ears out of the latest Vicky.   ears which then need expression.   lots and lots of people need quite a few polys in the ears for morphs.

Quote - Posette, Judy, Low Res Alyson; they do not come better;

that's a real matter of opinion.  i've seen people do some truly impressive work with Posette and Judy (though not low res Alyson yet).  i'd actually be very interested in seeing your work.  but all of those figures have fairly irregular topology, and topology really matters the lower res you get.   they don't have the least faulty bending of all figures out there, they don't have UV mapping with the least amount of stretch, and body shape and proportion is purely a matter of personal taste.  i agree that a lot of hype goes into new figures, and there's a lot of inefficiency that could be solved by better topology rather than more polygons.  but basically saying the only reason people like and use the features of higher resolution figures is they don't know any better is just incorrect.