I would rather just give early access to notable users than make us pay 3 hundred dollars worth of Robux if it will be free for everyone later on.
Usually, we pay QA Testers. Roblox thinks QA Testers will pay them instead…
6 Likes
extra characters
So not only do we (non-traders/unpopular developers) have to pay Roblox $270 USD ($105 in DevEx Rates) to even get the 30,000 Robux, they’re wanting us to spend all of it on a game pass. That’s a little bit extreme and is a genuine waste for the tester.
I assume that when an asset is set to private, it will no longer work inside of games. In that case, be careful when having developers insert their assets into public games because they could just set them to private and poof! The asset is gone.
4 Likes
We desperately need explanations and justifications for why we have to pay 30k robux.
Not everyone wants to pay 30k robux and even less to lose access upload permissions.
I’m aware it’s beta and it’s limited but something feels not right about this feature.
1 Like
30k robux for what exactly??? Roblox ceasing to make any sort of sense as per usual.
1 Like
because it requires engineers to go in and handle it. if there were hundreds of requests no one would be able to get anything done. the obvious implication here is that devs who earn a bunch are going to be the ones testing it out, which makes sense because they are the ones most affected (PS99 has a leak every 2 seconds).
people are making way too a big deal out of this, they state in the same post it will eventually become a free feature
3 Likes
Yep, another bad update rolling out to Roblox. Because of course they are a billion dollar company and now our assets will be destroyed in any way possible
Now our hard work will be gone thanks to Roblox because me and my friend are working on a Mad Paintball Remake and we’ve already come close to finishing it
Oh, and on a serious point; You said something about forcingly open sourcing our assets. We do not want ours opened sourced in any way that you think
2 Likes
Implying that archiving assets hasn’t already been a feature for years.
This is not going to be anywhere near as disastrous as some people are making it out to be.
2 Likes
It’s a cost driven beta which will eventually go free, and rather would you like it to be free right now so everyone loses UGC access, I bet.
1 Like
Hi everyone,
Thank you for the feedback. We understand your concerns, and wanted to provide more context and details on the beta and long-term plans.
- The price is temporary. In 2025, we will enable asset privacy and permissions on the asset types listed in the beta to all users at not cost. The asset system is complex and operates at a large scale. We will systematically roll out the functionality to ensure we can support the scale while supporting your creation & collaboration workflows. We are still in the early stages, and supporting beta users will require manual support from our eng team. It’s also why we have the current restrictions. The beta enables us to give those creators who absolutely need asset privacy the opportunity to protect their assets and their usage before the feature is generally available.
- “Restricted” (private) assets can be used in public experiences.
- The “restricted” (private) access type will only apply to newly uploaded assets. Previously uploaded assets are not impacted.
- Any experience that gains access to an asset will not break, regardless if the asset is “open use” (public) or “restricted” (private). This will help provide creators confidence that assets their experiences depend on will continue to be available.
- When we launch asset privacy & permissions available to all creators, you will have the option to change your assets to “open use” (public). Our goal is to give you control over how your assets are used, while ensuring those experiences that depend on the assets don’t break. For the asset types listed in the beta, you will be able to change an asset’s access type to “open use” (public), which will function the same way it does today. If you decide to keep the asset as “restricted” (private), you can then share access directly with other users or by distributing on the Creator Store.
We hope this provides more context on our rationale for the beta.
13 Likes
So does this mean assets are being forced private?
2 Likes
i’m more concerned about what the state of beta features will be going forward; will those end up paywalled too? to me this feels like a very dangerous first step towards a system like that
it feels extremely unnecessary, it heavily limits the amount of people available to test a feature leading to far less polish at the release of a feature
1 Like
They will default to private, but you will be able to change the asset to “open use” during import, or after the asset has been uploaded. We will also provide an account-level setting that will enable you to set all uploaded assets to “open use”.
4 Likes
Hope Fully it will change sometime in the future.
2 Likes
I have a question, if an asset of mine is stolen and I would like to DMCA the stolen asset, how would that work if the asset stolen is private?
2 Likes
Personally, I have plenty of robux that I could use to buy this game pass. The new asset privacy system seems very useful since I’ve been targeted by game stealing exploits and have had my assets and games leaked many times in the past by exploiters, it’s amazing that developers are able to have this now. However, I wish that this change also applied to my previously uploaded assets since I’m not the type of person to just give away my assets to others. I have hundreds, maybe even thousands of meshes and textures I’ve uploaded for my games over the years and I just can’t sift through all of them, making them all private one by one. If there was a feature to make all previously uploaded offsale assets private, I would definitely utilize that.
Not a big fan of the “we still haven’t finished the feature we’ve been promising for years but if you hand over a ton of money (hundreds of dollars) we will do it for you now!”
How about actually finish the feature instead of wasting time setting up a manual and labor intensive temporary patch.
1 Like