I feel like the issue people have with this beta is less the exclusivity and more the selection process. They could’ve launched this beta in so many different ways, so why launch it with a $105 (DevEx) to ~$300 (regional Robux shop) paywall? Roblox is a multibillion dollar company; are they so desperate for cash flow that they need to fleece eager developers like this, especially for a completely automatic feature that should’ve existed a decade ago?
1 Like
People have to pay 30k Robux to help you beta test in addition to them having lots of restrictions like not being able to post new items on the avatar marketplace being one of them? That sounds kind of ridiculous not going to lie. What sense does this make at all.
I remember the 700-slot server beta program being free to join, as well as being open to more people (and it leading to nowhere, no promise to even be implemented really, thus even less important than this)… and frankly, it seems such a surge in potential server bandwidth usage for what was essentially some testing around surely must’ve been more expensive than this overdue, yet still rudimentary, asset privacy backend change which was probably forked from the existing audio privacy API.
So… this begs the questions: why do we have to pay for a very necessary and very basic feature (copy protection), in a testing beta, with limited slots - when content theft is such a large issue on Roblox specifically - but not for an increase in server bandwidth usage? Do the actual expenses or the importance of a feature justify the costs?
Where are those 30k robux even going? Into the void? Into the Robux Federal Reserve? Cause they sure as hell ain’t going into no employee’s pocket… 30k robux x n (integer representing the limited slot count) is too little to pay out multiple employees’ salaries … unless maybe… this is one person…or something. Maybe they outsourced this to some indian, like how they usually do, and decided that, that is his pay.
IIRC servers can be very costly, especially the Roblox ones; making up a large portion of their expenses. Maybe they had some optimization - I really don’t know, don’t quote me on that… Them lazy engineers are on the gravy train with this one. I would formally classify this as a highway robbery - 300 dollars for some unfinished gobbledygook, which developers have gone without for years anyways. The gamepass is very reminiscent of how 10 year olds conduct business on Roblox via the Talent Hub and Discord.
2 Likes
Seems like they taking inspiration from Twitter Blue… pretty lame but it is how it is.
1 Like
when engine improvement?
pls trust we need this 
1 Like
PLEASE EXTEND THIS TO ANIMATIONS:pray:
its so disappointing to see every new update that comes out to exclude everything animation-wise
2 Likes
if you truly wanted early access, you wouldnt be complaining + since its selective ofc theres going to be some sort of fee
Are you referring to the “open-use” part? Because Animation IDs are already restricted to the creator of the animation.
Theres no protection once someone gets the animationid, they can easily steal anims off it
Yeah, and this has the same issue. Once someone has the asset itself - all the actual data, like the mesh .fbx (internally they use a custom .mesh) and the decal .png - there is no stopping them. It is outside Roblox. The only thing Roblox has control over, is preventing the Asset ID from loading the asset in games that are not authorised, preventing the file from ever reaching the player’s computer, which is already what happens to Animations. As long as someone can get the asset to load in an authorised game, then it is already stealable, because their client needs to have that data to actually show it on their screen.
If you are talking about the “Animation Spoofer” plugin to load other people’s animations into Studio, I’m not so sure about that. But I vaguely remember a “Sound Spoofer”, so I’m not sure how much this privacy feature would help.
1 Like
I didn’t and still don’t really like the whole audio thing, sure I agree keping your assets to yourself etc is key but still it was so annoying there being free audio that was no longer able to be used.
That said I rarely use free models, but sometimes some are good to use as place holders
great work roblox for the beta paid system 
sadly were not that rich robux
Does this mean assets uploaded on my personal account will become unusable for experiences not published by me in the future?
Similar to the audio privacy update where every asset has to be manually given permission?
The only way to make it even harder to steal is by using asset encryption. Even then, it requires decryption to be readable and then rendered through the computer hardware. And the decryption keys are also readable somewhere in the memory region which makes it nearly useless once someone with the right skills (and hardware) targets someone else’s experiences.
And since all it takes is just some read operations on the memory (RAM) and video memory (VRAM) - it’s even harder to detect such activities going on other than the usual signature enforcement which Hyperion already has done for, but you know how the Hyperion situation on Macs and mobile devices are, the restrictions aren’t letting Hyperion do it’s job in those platforms.
That being said, the only good solution - is for Roblox to take copyright violations seriously like the blatantly stolen assets, not just the accidentally “stolen” clothings uploaded almost a decade ago.
1 Like
Sorry, just to clarify since I’m not entirely certain with some of the wording here - I understand during the beta that all legacy assets will remain “open use”, but after the beta ends, will all previously uploaded assets remain “open use”, or will they be forced to “private”?
For what it’s worth I think this will be very useful in the future to safeguard against low-level theft, but there are a number of things I can imagine becoming problematic for pre-existing games if the answer to the my question is the latter.
1 Like
Newly-uploaded assets will default to private. Existing assets will not be affected.
1 Like
Is it going to be possible to private already uploaded assets which have the “ Distribute on Creator Store” turned off already and so technically you don’t want others to access it?
After reading this, I have a serious question because this jeopardizes my game and my state of mind. I have read this and have interpreted it as if user Packages and Models are being made public? I have always thought these were already private and inaccessible to other users, is there something I’m missing? Packages have their own permission system already and you can give view/edit rights to other users. What does privacy mean in this scenario? I have even tried accessing my own Packages and Models and they appear to be private already. Will private server code stored in Packages now just become public?
I agree with this, and I think it’s a good idea to test it. People who think it’s not expensive will buy it. I don’t think it’s expensive