As a developer, it is currently impossible to split revenue between differing asset types between several users.
Groups currently have no way of establishing recurring payouts per game or asset, by default it divides the revenue stream of the entire group instead, which can be problematic.
To my knowledge, there is no way of automating this process, without resorting to an external bot that tracks inventory, if that’s possible to begin with. You can try to keep track of this manually with spreadsheets, but this is not scalable as it will take time that can be dedicated elsewhere. This issue becomes exacerbated with groups that contain a large amount of clothing, developer products and gamepasses.
Publishers circumvent this issue by creating multiple groups and hosting only one game on each group, however, this does more harm than good in the long run.
Branding is a really important; namely search engine optimization and the average player’s willingness to search for new groups.
When a publisher decides to host their games across different groups, for the convenience of having income organized by game, or even clothing; they’re giving up the potential to amass customers and redirect them to other products which they would likely be interested in, as a result of having their content on a centralized web-location.
Group descriptions are limited to a thousand characters; so there’s little space to describe a group as well as their products. Many potential customers don’t realize there are more products which they would be interested in, which results in lost revenue.
a contractual agreement between a clothing designer and publisher wherein each party receives a percentage of the proceeds from a specific clothing asset.
These are a few of the many scenarios that prove: asset-specific fund management features are a very much needed addition to Roblox.
Both game publishers and fashion groups on Roblox would benefit greatly from this:
‣ Could structure a single group on Roblox to contain multiple teams / third party developers, each respectively focused on their own game, which then gets hosted on the publisher’s group.
‣ Players from game A, could rub off onto game B. Due to game B having presence on the same web-page as game A, there’s less friction.
This would allow publishers to work in a more streamlined manner, spend less time on resource management and focus more on the actual development process.
It would better build a group’s community as well, whereas in the other scenario, a publisher’s community would have been scattered across several different groups, if a publisher opted to use one group per game; which is the reality for most developers today.
‣ Can then negotiate terms where designers can get a fair share of the clothing and UGC accessories they had designed’s revenue.
Customers love the convenience of having several assets gathered under the same merchant; There’s less friction and sales are more likely to occur.
• Groups would have less friction selling assets
• Developers would have less trouble growing their community as a result of their content being more centralized and thus more search-engine friendly
• Developers would not have to spend robux on creating duplicate groups of their own publishing group for the convenience of sorting game revenue
• Developers could host asset-specific monetary arrangements with more ease; i.e.: in the form of deals between publishers & fashion designers