Care to provide proof for that one chief?
8 Likes
So good to know that Roblox is investigating this now.
1 Like
Are you sure? Cause i never have seen them talking about integrating metamask into the website before, Do you have a official source or you just made it up?
2 Likes
Exactly, It would be very sad if Roblox did not take action.
1 Like
I agree.
However, the developer should’ve researched NFT’s and figured, “Oh crap, this aint for kids.”.
But, humans make mistakes I guess. 
1 Like
Yeah I don’t think it’s ideal, but users know what they’re getting when they spend money. Right now dragons are mostly cosmetic, but they do provide speed bonuses (and are thus pay to win in that sense.) I’ve been working for the last year on changes to how everything will work, and I post details here. I plan to change the business model so characters are more accessible with most of the monetization moved to cosmetics, with a reasonably non-pay-to-win grind to get it from baby to adult. One of the main reasons the price is high is because there are lots of other non-dragon characters that I want people to use instead. I also have an animator and 3d artist hired full time working on free improvements to characters that users bought years ago.
Anyways, I feel pressured to monetize more aggressively to keep up with other experiences that employ predatory business models. I would certainly earn more if dragons were obtained as a <1% chance from a lootbox, and it’s sad that I could even do that legally (It’s practically a slot machine at that point, because it’s always possible to receive something subjectively worthless.) With NFT’s in the mix I think I would just be done; Experiences willing to do this would have massively higher incomes by bypassing Roblox’s cash out rate (and even real-world taxes), and I just can’t compete with that. I don’t want to develop on a platform where top experiences exploit kids for money. Not to mention environmental concerns.
I became a parent in 2018, and I’m honestly not sure if I’d let my kids play Roblox (or most popular online games.) I don’t think it’s very healthy for kids to buy power over others in games, but pay-to-win aspects aren’t always harmful. It’s one thing for a poor family to save up for a product for their child, like a DLC, cosmetic, or XP boost, but it’s just completely horrible when they are only paying for a chance to get what the child wants.
Here's my reponse to lootboxes that I posted on the Shard Seekers' discord in January.
Will Shard Seekers ever sell lootboxes?
Many competing games have unethical monetization where you receive a random item when you spend real money, and hype up the <1% rare items that you would need to spend hundreds of dollars to have a chance at. What’s frustrating is that some of these games get tons of money from kids, and don’t even put that money back into the game to add fun high budget content.
I don’t like lootboxes. Imagine if you needed to spin a wheel every time you wanted a new animal, and couldn’t just buy what you want. Players might spend more money to support the game, but that doesn’t make it okay. It’s akin to gambling and I don’t think it’s healthy for children. I’m a dad and I overwork myself every day so that I can earn enough to support a team of content artists, while trying to provide ethical monetization in a fun, free to play environment.
Players will optimize the fun out of a game given the chance, and randomness is exciting. With lootboxes, spending money becomes the game. If I ever need to add random mechanics to purchases, I promise to keep it minimal, for example, buying bonus XP for a character’s random level. I would only add random purchase mechanics if it was the only way to compete in a market where most other games do it.
You should talk to your parents about whether lootboxes should be regulated, and send feedback to your local government if you feel strongly. Many big AAA games take it too far and it needs to be addressed by the world. Lootboxes exist on a spectrum and come in many forms. Some are more harmful than others, and the line can get fuzzy (like getting random loot from a boss that you paid to fight.) With baseball/etc. cards you get physical objects, but it’s still the same. These products have perceived value, and the value you receive is up to chance.
16 Likes
That’s good to hear. You may be surprised if making the items more attainable increases your player base and sales. Its possible. I do commend your transparent pricing though vs. hiding it behind a roulette wheel. Good luck in your restructuring.
2 Likes
I hope they do not take action on the game, more of a less just a warning. Big Games makes some of their biggest games, aka Pet Simulator X which has gotten a billion visits within just a few months. I highly doubt they will delete the game, nor ban Preston. But we’ll see what happens
1 Like
I was at RDC and have not hear any of this. If you want to lie to drum up drama, at least make it more credible than “I saw it but can’t see it anymore”
4 Likes
For anyone wondering, They did do the Huge cat plushie which maybe isn’t considered off-platform buying, since you are technically buying a plushie with a CODE on it, Compared to an NFT which is straight up Buying it/Bidding for it.
1 Like
Limiteds aren’t NFTs… the only thing they talked about in terms of limiteds is them possibly bringing them back for UGC creations. This is more of an explanation of what they are to the people unassociated with Roblox. Before you speculate, look for the greater context at hand.
2 Likes
Where is the line drawn? Could I sell a pin for $50 that comes with an in-game item that’s worth $30 (after DevEx) of in-game currency? That’s a significantly better profit margin than when users spend Robux.
1 Like
I’m sorry, but this is just not true.
2 Likes
I would argue that it actually makes a lot of sense why someone would sell something for that much- to make a big profit.
1 Like
I just want to personally say that I’m extremely glad that Roblox is at the very minimum responding to the controversy (something they don’t commonly do), though I do think this brings up more questions then it does answers.
Like for example, if it turns out that Pet Simulator X indeed was breaking ToS, and results in administrative action taken upon the game, (either in just the NFT part being removed, or even the entire game getting taken down), what then will happen to the people who spent literal thousands of USD worth of Crypto on the NFTs? Will they get refunds, or will they be completely screwed? If they ultimately don’t get refunded, Roblox should step in and do something, since this took place on their platform.
Also,(correct me if I’m wrong might be misinformation but unsure) the owner of Pet Simulator X reportedly asked Roblox for permission to sell NFTs, and they gave the “all clear” to him to do so. Why didn’t they just resolve the issue from the beginning and not have to deal with all of this to begin with?
Regardless, this is a step in the right direction and this should serve as reference to future Developers who want to try cheating the system.
1 Like
I sort of disagree. BIG Games and Preston have shown that they support the world of NFTs, and despite the backlash they received they continued to go along with it.
They should’ve known the possible consequences that would go along with their decisions and surely they didn’t think people wouldn’t think that what they were doing was against the ToS, right?! They were being careless and greedy.
They refused to take feedback from others (even YouTubers) who thought that selling NFTs with in-game perks in a game that a lot of children probably play was a terrible idea. They deserve to be punished for what they did in some form.
Now, what would that punishment be? While perhaps I wouldn’t go as far as deleting their games as people have data on them and I’m sure quite a number of people have spent a long time getting stuff in them, I would say that at the very least the people behind this NFT thing should be banned.
They got 150,000 dollars from the NFT auction by selling NFTs with in-game perks for a game made on ROBLOX’s platform so I would think ROBLOX would have some sort of power over them when it comes to that.
There’s hundreds (probably thousands) of developers who work hard to get to where they are now, and for BIG Games to figure that they can just get by with selling ROBLOX-related NFTs to make more money than most people make on ROBLOX alone? That just doesn’t sit well with me.
If this was the case then ROBLOX wouldn’t have made this announcement and worded it as though BIG Games did something wrong. This information is most likely false.
4 Likes
I’d highly recommend you do research into the subject, but more or less every study around NFTs (and cryptocurrency since it’s related) results in the consensus that it’s really, really bad for the planet.
For example, “the the average NFT will accrue a stunning footprint of 211 kg of CO2, equivalent to driving 513 miles in a typical US gasoline-powered car.” - Erin Davis’s study on NFTs.
And also, while yes you can do things “environmentally unfriendly”, you can take steps to do things to become "environmentally friendly*, one of which is not supporting industries like NFTs.
3 Likes
Roblox isn’t expanding. Their users are. This is a non-issue.
Our Terms of Service and Community Standards exist for the safety and wellbeing of all users.
When off-platform transactions occur that are tied to on-platform items or experiences, it is impossible for us to monitor the details of that event and it blocks our ability to validate or mediate any claims. Moreover, it can also violate the terms of our app store partners. In some scenarios, it can be okay to give away something off-platform (such as over social media) for free as part of community-building efforts.
To clarify this, we have updated the Roblox Economy section of the Community Standards to be even more explicit about what is not allowed.
This message serves as notice of the policy clarification. We are reviewing existing violations and may provide developers an opportunity to bring some concerning transactions into compliance.
176 Likes