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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Thanks for posting the response from Daz3D Customer Support, mrinal.
Just wonder, if it will solve the problem with your planned game...
Hmmm you even got me thinking about puting out a Game Developer License! now.
Personally, I would have preferred if Daz uses separate sections of the EULA to address the selling of related content in other content marketplaces versus selling in-game content (as part of base game or in the form of IAP/DLCs) - they are not the same, at least from a technical perspective. Since I am not a lawyer, I am not sure if that would be even possible to implement that contractually or what are the challenges in describing such separate clauses in legal terms for 3D content. But I think it should be possible for Daz to segregate those scenarios and define restrictions in the EULA based on how (and what part of) the original content is allowed to be packaged and distributed by developers - whether in source format (reversible/exportable for content marketplaces) or compiled format (irreversible for video games).
Though customer service has addressed my concerns in simple terms, the purchase requirement clause of the EULA cannot be ignored especially while it is mentioned in the Game Development section. I am analyzing how that clause in EULA can impact the future prospects of the game. Say, if I want to enter into a partnership with another team, or have to find a publisher or in case, I want to sell the rights to the game to another party at a later stage. Assuming that the concerned parties in those scenarios agree to the purchase of GDL and all associated content from Daz, will that purchase requirement clause in the EULA be a deterrent (or be a disadvantage during negotiations)? Or in other words, can I depend on the statement from CS during negotiations when the EULA leaves so much room for interpretation?
I am not doubting that Daz would ever back away from what they said, its just that things can get complicated and difficult to manage within certain contexts. While the importance of a lawyer opnion cannot be obviated, I doubt if protection from potential effect on future prospects is something a lawyer can assure.
"whether in source format (reversible/exportable for content marketplaces)" is not allowed, "compiled format (irreversible for video games)" is allowed. Any DLCs must be more than just a pack that adds items/assets to the original game.
Greetings,
I'm just going to put this out there; being concerned about what happens when you sell your game to some other company is just procrastination.
In fact, a lot of license concerns are just procrastination.
It's so incredibly easy to go, 'Well, I need to flesh this unrelated-to-actually-making-a-fun-game part out first, and make sure my licenses are good, and.., and..., and...' that you never actually make a fun game. And then all that mental effort and worry is for naught.
Your original question was very reasonable, but shelve the 'future prospects of the game' worry until you've got a game that's got future prospects.
-- Morgan
[p.s. On a semi-related note, I take every opportunity to put this article about 'worrying' out there. In my opinion, you've done everything you reasonably can to cover yourself. Anything more is just worrying.]
While I can understand the need to close a 'hole' which could potentially be exploited while using CRT Content, the mandatory requirement of 'use of content available through online Daz store' under game development section is not relevant to game development at all. The response from customer support also hints towards that. What concerns me is that, despite all these assurances I still see a potential threat wherein that clause can be executed to revoke the license. Discussing further on this topic would probably involve crossing territories of trust and mutual understanding.
My remarks on future prospects of the game was to stress upon what all risks could be involved in development when terms in EULA are not laid out accurately or tend to misrepresent their intentions. Nothing beyond that. I think its a matter of opinion as to what one may consider as due-diligence vs procrastination. But if that is what this thread has started to sound like, then I would say its time to end this conversation without getting into a debate, because that was never my intention.
Why does it bother you what somebody does with your content that they paid for? That doesn't even make sense to me. If I bake cakes and sell them, I really don't care if they eat them or not...as long as they buy them. Nobody is asking you change how you make anything, at all. Restricting Daz products to be strictly used for 2D art renders is like restricting those cakes to strictly ate only as dessert. No snacking! You can't give it to your dog (it doesn't have chocolate) and you certainly are NOT allowed to take it out back and shoot it. Those go beyond what I allow you to do with my cake...even though you purchased it. Its silly.
Sure, people could create their own game assets or buy from other stores as you suggest...but lets turn that question on you, why don't you create more assets for your renders yourself? You shouldn't even need Daz3d, you should be able to create your 3d model yourself, just like you should be able to grind your own paints for painting...
The answer is obvious, and the just the same as to why somebody would buy an asset for game creation.
And if Daz didn't want people using their assets for gaming, they wouldn't advertise them for gaming. When Genesis 3 launched, it was pitched as the most "game ready" model Daz ever made. Why would they say that when they have Morph3D? Why would they reduce the poly count of Genesis 3 so much, when poly counts are not a huge factor in rendering?
Well for those that don't want to sell game licenses that is their choice. There are plenty more than not of 3D modelers and 2D sprite makers that do sell their content for use in games; certainly more than I can afford to license from.
You should ask Daz helpdesk they are really helpful and very quick anytime i contact them and are the only ones who understand all this legal speak,there is no point guessing what the EULa means it does not make much sense unless you are a lawyer
Daz does want people to use its content in games - hence the Game Developer License. Genesis 3 is older than Morph3D.
I must acknowledge, it was me who was a bit inaccurate in assessing the whole scenario. But at the end, customer service kept up its reputation and promptly allowed me a refund on the GDL which I had bought just days back. Sorry Daz, its not that there is a problem with the clause in the EULA or an issue with the way you handle the game development business ... its just that it didn't work out for me.
So just wondering, if you included all of the assets in the game and the IAP/DLC was just used to unlock that content, would that pass muster with with EULA? The IAP/DLC would in essence be an unlock code, with no assets being transferred, so EULA doesn't apply to that kind of transaction?
The EULA says separately purchased, not separately delivered, so I don't think that's a loophole.