Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
As was said earlier in the thread, it does; also, I'm sure if you can find older manual instsllers somewhere, you can install as many versions as you want. Prior to DIM, that's how you had to do it.
As for support in future versions, in an ideal world PAs would double check and fix issues if a product didn't work in a newer version. Unfortunately, we live in a less than ideal one, and it's not practical for them to do so, and sometimes they lose interest in making content for whatever reason. Nor is it practical for DAZ to do such testing, when they have a constant influx of new content to test.
People would complain, that is what would happen. Sure, a business can refuse to offer any discount or support for previous versions, but that would not go over so well. Are you suggesting that given the chance you would create software for Windows 10, and exclude all previous versions of Windows from your testing? Because that just does not seem very sound as a business practice to me. Again, you could do that, there is no law against it, but customers would rip you to shreds in reviews. Perhaps I am the only person who feels that way, but for some crazy reason I think I am not alone. Just look up any PC game that is exclusive to Windows 10...if you can find one. And that in spite of the fact that Windows 10 brings many improvements, like DirectX 12, to the table. But you will not see any game developer besides MS themselves creating games exclusive to 10, and there is a very good reason for that. And I say this even though I am one of the few (it seems) who is perfectly happy with Windows 10.
When I say install multiple versions, I mean on the same computer. It seems you can't do that unless you have a beta.
I would still love to see the install base numbers of how many are on older versions. You can argue against their reasons, but you cannot argue against their wallets. I think it would be a bad idea to release a product for 4.9 that excludes previous versions entirely. Again, 4.8 was up to date just a few months ago. Its not like its ancient.
But what I want to see most is the versions of Daz a product works for. There are Victoria 4 items from 2009 that show ONLY 4.9 in their compatibilty. That's absurd, and moreover, as one just mentioned, it highly unlikely they actually tested to see if it worked in 4.9. Is this request too much to ask for? Like Measure Metrics. I bought that ealier this year. Then one day I accidently updated MM in DIM. It quit working, because now MM works in 4.9, but NOT 4.8. Bad move on my part! I had to send in a support ticket to get it straightened out. And what is totally insane, the support email actually asked me to "keep quiet" about the solution we came up with. WHAT?????? Why does that have to be a secret? I got something to work in 4.8, but its a secret!
Can be that one looses something if not updatig, but in this special issue it is about a pair of jeans made for g3f and g3m and both, g3f and g3m work in DS4.8 as in DS4.9 so clothes made for these figures should work in both DS versions, too without running them through the transfer tool (that luckely works for this product). I talk not about textures and stuff but I talk about the geometry "the hardware"
A product made for a figure like g3f which works in DS4.8 and in DS4.9 should also work in both versions of DS. That is a logical thing for me. Or is the DS4.8 G3F not the same G3F as in DS4.9???
No, currently in windows or any OS, you buy the upgrade, you stay with the old OS or you don't use the program in the new OS. Those are your options. Sure you can complain, but you will do one of those 3 things. As I said, programs that are written in the current version should work in the current version, and there's no guarantee that it will work in future versions or older versions. The software developer may offer an update, but it is never mandatory as it's an expense to do the update. I already have emails from several companies notifying me of the update to MacOS Sierra will break compatibility with their software and they are offering me paid updates, not free ones. I'm usally a late adopter, so I usually wait until the bugs shake out, but I when I update to the new os, some (but not all) the programs I will update depending on the need. This is no different.
And again. A product made for a figure like G3F which works in DS4.8 like in DS4.9 should also work in both versions or is the G3F DS4.8 version not the same G3F version then the G3F DS4.9 version. Do you know what I mean??? If you create a product that works independently okay, than there can be a difference between DS4.8 and DS4.9 but if you create a product, especially clothes for a specific figure which works in both DS versions, this product should also work in both versions, everything else is not logic.
Other thing is that there are products at the store that has shown DS4.8 as Compatible Software until DS4.9 came out, now they show DS4.9 as Compatible Software but the product itself did not change. So how can anyone know which products needs which software???????
See my post back on p2, it's been an ongoing situation for many years. And there seems to be no interest in fixing it.
+1
Vista it was called.
What happend? Lots of ill will towards MS; people refused to upgrade, they hated it.
(It was pretty crap tbh, or at least how quickly a system felt sluggish. But that's what you get when an OS has 70 million lines of code; later versions have much less. And it wasn't just the code quantity; there are Linux distrols with far more.)
I'm in agreement; a previous version should expect some support. At the very least, products should state if they will or will not work with the previous version; ideally more than the previous, but certainly the previous version.
Indeed life moves on, but it doesn't have to take everything with it. :)
Software developers have a vested interest in getting users to switch/purchase the latest and greatest. The sensible (and experienced amongst us) know that new also brings a new set of bugs.
I shudder to think how I'd be if I had blinding installed and started to use Connect. NO THANKS.
I most definitely will do what I think is best for me; I may be wrong (experience tells me it will be more often than I like), but as long as I do it for the correct reasons, I will be content to be proved wrong.
This conversation does seem to be going in circles now, with the simple restatement of entrenched postions. The pros and cons of updating or not updating have been thoroughly stated, and the discussion is unlikely to benefit friom further repetition.
This is not the comparison we're speaking of. If the OS changed the way programs operated to the point the needed to run in the new OS, it is a cost to update them and that has always been passed to the user. OS to OS updates are rarely free. If a program is updated, such as photoshop, plugins may be upgraded at cost as well if the a fix was required to use it. The goal is to make things compatible as possible between versions, but normally if it requires developer fixes to work in new versions, you're normally paying for it as this requires developer reources, time and testing, which takes them away from regular devlopment that funds their operations. A good number of content developers are living from product to product, so sometimes it's not feasible to update products for free as it takes them away from development that actually pays their bills.
Also note that with the release of Vista, one of the goals was to get rid of all of the legacy code that was bogging down the OS and making it hard to add new features. Since a lot of old code was removed, many older programs, especially those that ran in much older versions of the OS stopped working, so you had to pay for updates as developers had to rewrite them for the new OS.
Your point about updates for addons is the point about which many users are objecting to upgrade, which they've made repeatedly. Your posts have seemed to be an argument saying they should upgrade. Obviously your post here tacitly acknowledges that there are times when it is not practical or ideal.
I understand what you're saying about it taking them time to update, and that time has a cost implication.
But there are a number (small admitedly) products I've considered over time; I haven't bought them because I wasn't sure they would get updated. That is definitely not good for sales.
(Vista wouldn't run Painshopt Pro 7; Windows 7, 8 and 10 do. Paintshop Pro 7 is from 2000. I now rarely use it, but it does do one thing I still very occasionally use it for.) Vista was a mess and best ignored tbh.
The Iray bug in 4.8 means that that version is effectively broken thus the push to move on to 4.9 by DAZ and many vendos.
OK, I've had my say. Oh, and thanks for reminding me that Apple will be releasing Sierra! I usually just go ahead and install any new OSX updates or versions. I'm not doing anything important anyway!
No, what I've said is that I'm slow to upgrade because I usually have things in the pipeline that need be done before I do. But don't mistake that for I won't upgrade, because I will as I did with 4.9, as the iray SSS settings were broken in 4.8 as well as some content blew up in 4.8 which was also corrected, thus the move to the newer version.
"I don't want to", "I like what I use", "I hate DRM"... Whatever the reason, it is valid. That doesn't mitigate the fact that an explicit decision is being made by the user to not move forward and those users should expect immediate failures on defaults moving forward -- whether they be settings for the render engines or default layouts for new content. If one wants to operate outside of the recommended environment, then one accepts that THEY are solely responsible for the extra effort needed to "make things work." A linux user trying to make DS work in WINE has no right to an expectation that things are going to work. A user that refuses to update should similarly have no expectations that the newly released stuff is going to continue to work.
It's a harsh reality, but it is a choice that you (generic you) decided to make knowing that it could happen.
Kendall
Well, but should, by that logic, a user, who updates, not be entitled to expect that things like scripts and shaders and lights and such are adapted to the new system and not left broken?
A thought for product design in the future: If guaranteed compatible product lifespan of both software and matching content for that software could somehow be extended significantly beyond that single brief moment in time corresponding to a single software revision number or two, potential product sales could also be extended. In both directions in fact, for both new and old products.
I'm sure this has probably already been considered, and probably deemed impossible or not worth the associated downsides. But those idea people out there who plan and push the boundaries, don't give up on the idea. Somebody may have a brilliant idea a 3 AM for a way to accomplish this and allow future enhancements to add to instead of replace existing functionality, thus helping compatibility, sales, AND simultaneously reducing the number of these compatibility concern threads so we can all go spend our time creating art instead of grumbling about compatibilty. (do I think it will happen? no. Will it happen? ...it could. Just because you don't see a way to make it work today doesn't mean you won't have a genius idea tomorrow.)
Scripts are one of the things that I do not expect to always work right when I upgrade, since some might be compressed or encrypted (.dsb or .dse extensions). Lights, cameras amd shaders that depend on functionality that may have changed within DAZ Studio are another, and several known issues have been raise with these. However, should DAZ delay release of new versions of Studio indefinitely because the PAs that created them haven't updated them to work?
This question is going the opposite direction of the thread. People who do upgrade have a valid expectation that previous functionality will continue to work unless otherwise specified. This thread is about those who don't upgrade having problems using content made for a version newer than what they are using.
A piece of content, or a script, or a plugin that uses a feature of the newer version is inherently not going to work on a version of the software that doesn't have the necessary feature. Some will try to say: "But this is just content, not a script or plugin." Folks, we're WAY beyond primitive Poser 4 models now that were just OBJ files with some definitions for deltas. Content now is actually small, encapsulated program instructions. There are numerous JCMs, ERCs, Weight Mapping Conditions, and other things. There are new settings being added to the newer versions of DS that simply don't exist in the older versions or that have different functionality than before. Content is only going to get more and more "intelligent" and will use built in features of the host app version for which they are designed.
People say "Well then we should be told which versions it works on." YOU HAVE. DAZ Studio content is specified to work ON THE CURRENT VERSION IN THE STORE. DS is free, there is no monetary cost to get the version that supports the content, therefore there is no reason to maintain a list of compatible "versions". Where there is a monetary cost involved in updating the host software (Poser) there is a reason to explicitly say which version is necessary since external costs may be incurred by the customer to use the content.
Kendall
This is helpful info for me, thank you.
So does a figure for sale for G3 have equal value now, as it does just before the release of a new version of Studio?
The obvious answer is no, because the new version may cause it in some what to break; by your definition, it has less value due to it only being supported for a short period of time; shorter time for support should equal reduced cost.
However, the cost of that item will be approximately the same. So you think folks should pay the same for an item with a potentially much shorter life than those available now? The way to maintain that functionality is to keep the existing version of Studio and not upgrade; then there is the posiblility of new products a user may buy, not working as intended or not at all. This, however, leaves all of the costs and risk in the hands of the user. I find that unacceptable.
I am however glad you have raised it; Daz products aren't like other software components, so this needs a reevaluation of my habits. Especially my purchasing habits.
You're asking us to treat Daz products as plugins; only guaranteed to work for a specific version of Daz Studio; this is obviously not the case, as every single product is flagged as 4.9 compatible. If it's flagged as such, then it should be. They aren't, however, some work better than others, and some not at all (I understand).
But if that is how they should be treated, then their cost should reflect their guaranteed period of support. Considering the current release cycle of Studio, they are guaranteed for about a year under your premise. I'm not talking about what often/normally happens: which is products working for years.
I'm talking about the guaranteed period of functionality. This is never more than approximately a year.
Personally, products for sale by Daz and other sites, should not be considered like other software. They are because they are not hardware, and yet they are not, they exits beyond the software, and beyond the computer (as images and amimations). (They could even be printed out to become physical images - I wonder how often that happens?)
So to reiterate: they are not software, or plugins; they should not be treated as such. If that is what Daz thinks they are, then the lifespan of guaranteed support should be clearly documented. I feel that Daz does not think of them as such items. The impression I get is tha Daz thinks of them as something very differnet. Presuming this is the case, then your argument is is incorrect.
Of course, some products are plugins, are extensions to Daz Studio; that makes some of them harder to quantify.
I don't say in my post you wont upgrade, or you shouldn't upgrade. I was commenting on your argument that others should upgrade, irrespective of how they feel; or their personal circumstances.
Thank you sir!!
I run vestigial versions of many applications
( Cinema4D, Adobe CS3 After Effects CS3 etc) because I still get the output I need from those versions for purposes both personal and professional and frankly... I am not as $$affluent$$ as I used to be.
I accept the reality that all of the really cool new plugins
and features & compatibilities will be denied to me but oh well.. my choice/$$problem$$
But in the case of Daz studio (A freeware program)
I am still on 4.7 because Have viable alternatives to Iray
(Vray for C4D on my Mac machine, and Blenders cycles on my Win7 PC)
and my animation pipeline tools ( Iclone Pro, Endorphin) would not change by upgrading to 4.9
People refusing to upgrade to 4.9 on "principle" should be prepared to be left out of alot of changes going forward thats the reality.
Not true. DAZ has recently acquired a boatload of products from that company they just absorbed and have dumped them into the catalog. Sure many of them work but I've run across a couple already that don't because despite the readme's saying they are compatible with DAZ Studio, they aren't without dinking around with inserting code into files or loading into Poser and/or rewriting out into Studio formats. I don't know about other people but I gave up on Poser a long time ago. Yes, I still have a version but I'm not going to dig it out and install it just to get a set of morphs to work. Much much easier to request a refund and make a mental note not to buy products from that vendor again and be wary of buying any future products from the items recently dumped into the catalog.
You are going the opposite direction of your argument. It is not the NEWER versions choking on older content that is the issue of discussion. The issue is older versions not being able to use NEWER content. The value is the same going forward, and that same content continues to work looking back. However, the specific content you are referencing was never represented as working in the older versions since it was released alongside a newer version with the explicit purpose of working with that specific version and minor revisions going forward.
Semantic changes of terms does not change the reality of the situation. Non-passive digital content is by definition software. This is true for MS Office .doc/docx files, PDF files, source code, and much else. All of these contain scripts or other parameters that effect change within the software they are designed for. Passive digital content, such as raw numeric data, OBJ files, raw imagery, are data and not software since they can only be acted upon and do not have inherent properties to effect change to the software designed to use them.
The simple fact of the matter is that DS content (and other proprietary content -- including Poser) contains much more than raw mesh data, and will contain even more active parts moving forward. Did you know that DS content (and Poser content as well) can actually contain actual program code that operates independently of DS's internal functions? I have played with creating truly "smart content" that can react to what else is in the scene. It is quite interesting.
Kendall
Agreed. I'm sure I've seen older items as well that worked on older versions. Now everything implies that you need 4.9 in order to use it and we know that's not always true. That's misinformation rather than information. Some marketplaces as well will list the date the item was released. I think that's very helpfull and a serious omission with Daz's website.
Not everything is going to be backwards compatible because it uses new features that are only included in the current version.
Well, the DAZ store does show release dates, but they're hidden away in the online readme, which we always have to jump through a hoop or two to reach. Direct links from the store page to the readme are a great idea... and I too wish the DAZ store had them.