Creator Roadmap: Spring 2024 Edition

Nothing is certain, and they’re not a member of staff, so don’t take their word for gospel.
But its almost certain Roblox won’t remove R6, or if they do, they’ll get huge backlash and revert the removal, as has happened with many other attempts to remove community-loved features in the past.


Yes, and its really annoying. I want to create innovative experiences, but what’s holding me back is the bad performance, lack of quality, and missing features of the engine.


:smiley: I’m very excited for these changes! Thank you Roblox! :happy4:

In particular, the Banning API, although delayed, is something we’ve needed for a long time. I am hoping that the focus on moderation will give us custom easy-to-use admin panels so that newer developers can easily access these kinds of features. :happy3:

Excited for the future!


Its such a struggle for me to develop as is due to focussing on my education and work experience. The active difficulties Roblox refuses to polish or improve with new features make it so much harder to develop on this platform than it should.

Roblox really do not respect the sheer advantage their platform has for developers due to free publishing and multiplayer servers, yet they do not take advantage of 21st century technological improvements that other video games and engines across the industry take full use of.

In some ways their platform is such a joke, yet in other ways its in a league of its own, and it really upsets me to see that only a few members of dedicated staff are holding the platform together, while others actively make changes that harm developers, without bothering to ASK developers and players!


Oh ty for telling me this lol i was literally gonna take a plane to the Roblox HQ


I’d love to see the rebates and per stock fees on UGC publishing be possibly lowered or at least more consideration on. I’ve seen many and many complaints about these fees being too expensive and making it harder to create and distribute UGC on the catalog. I’m all for opening the market to new creators, but I think the new fees would be a nice area to focus on when iterating on this new change. :slight_smile:


I would love to see this too… I would love to see that the price per copies on free UGC change to 25 or 30.


:smiley: Super thrilled about these updates! Thanks, Roblox! :tada:

Especially looking forward to the Banning API, though it’s been delayed, it’s a long-awaited addition. Hoping the moderation emphasis brings user-friendly admin panels for newer developers to access these tools effortlessly. :blush:

Here’s to what’s ahead!


I’m curious how you’d keep a function typesafe considering Lua is a duck typed language.

If you can make under the hood optimisations for known types I could imagine it would vroom code a lot.

On the banning API, they got rolled into the API dump this week, so I dont understand why they’re delayed lol.


Absolutely agree! Lowering rebates and per-stock fees for UGC publishing would be a game-changer. It’s crucial to address these concerns to empower creators and encourage more diverse content on the platform. Looking forward to seeing this aspect evolve with the new changes! :blush:


When will see prompts to join groups in experiences releasing?


Changing the price of free limited stock to 100 per stock when it was previously only 10-30 per stock is a very major change and does not deliver value to the community. If anything, it’s seriously hurting the free UGC scene and is making it harder for both free-to-play players to obtain free UGC, and also seriously hurting developers financially as they now can no longer afford to make free limiteds with a decent amount of stock.

To illustrate this point, here are a few screenshots from inside of “Flex your UGC limiteds” showing some of the most recent free UGC limiteds:

Notice how all of them are incredibly low stock, and have no more than 50-100 stock each? That’s because of just how expensive it is now to make free UGC items. If it was still only 10-30 robux per 1 stock for free limiteds, all of these would have hundreds - if not thousands - of stock instead of just double digits.


I think this was a mistake? This is already released and not related to the header.


:happy3: I second this. It’s crazy that they’ve been dead silent on these changes acting like the community will forget them (hint: people won’t, and they will keep complaining until the issue is addressed). Hoping they take our opinions into consideration. :thinking:


This is gonna be so helpful and will maybe finally help people not get banned from using free model with “viruses”. As well as the fact that this allows developers to more or less trust free models and not worry that it has a hidden backdoor or something similar.


“Improved moderation” should be on the future roadmap, the community has been asking this for years but we always get other things. what’s the point of enjoying new features if you get banned for something simple?


Generally the way this works is to trust but verify: The VM trusts that the types are what you say as far as compiling the code but at some point in the call graph it includes a runtime check verifying that the type is what you claimed.

Once it has done that all the downstream code can rely on the type information being accurate without further checks. If the type isn’t what the user claimed the VM has various options like preparing a new variant of the code just-in-time or bailing back out to the interpreted execution path.


To be clear, the Beta Preview was hoped to be released in early April but we made the call early on when it became clear we would be cutting corners to hit the date. I have been keeping the community as up to date as I reasonably can give the size of the task(s) we’ve taken on. In June we will release a Preview Beta where the community can test it all out and give us feedback well before it becomes the new default UI.

I would encourage anyone interested in the Next Gen Studio UI follow along here


wowowo, thats actually really good!


As long as we get occlusion culling.