Somebody argued against that before, which I mentioned in one of my previous posts.
The thing is, in order to prevent people from being tricked into enabling this property, it should be a relatively simple matter for Roblox to just make a window pop up when you try to enable this feature. The window can explain why it might be a bad idea to enable “PrivateModulesAllowed,” and that the player can continue at their own risk.
Maybe the popup could be similar to the one that appears when enabling loadstring, warning players of the consequences of turning it on?
Although this could happen, I do not think you should be messing with modules if you don’t know exactly what it could get you into. Furthermore, if you are unable to distinguish an official warning compared to one from a model you just inserted, you probably shouldn’t be developing games (just my personal opinion)
I already covered that pop up in my post.
I wasn’t intending to say that this would be a permanent solution alone, and there is some risk for being compromised for any model, module or not, open source or closed source. Adding a PrivateModulesAllowed would work for making place owners that simply don’t want any modules in their places safe, and I agree with that.
It is not okay for Roblox to punish the people using this feature as a way of making money just to get rid of the people using it in the wrong way.
I used private modules as a full-on business to make profit and with the removal of this feature I am no longer able to get Robux from the product I spent months perfecting to contribute to the Roblox community.
Roblox should never have disabled private modules without providing another option until they can create a better plan. A property would have been quite easy to create, I’m guessing… as, under the hood, it’s probably as simple as checking a bool value.
Anybody can create a fake pop-up to tell kids to turn on loadstring, then tempt them to put insecure remotes in places exploiters can access. This is a bandaid fix to a bigger problem.
That was part of the problem I was trying to address.
EDIT: I honestly would prefer a on/off button for allowing modules, but I don’t know that that idea wouldn’t get marked down some for the reason that it still gives people the option to go back into the same situation that they were in before this update if they just click on a button, and could still put inexperienced people at risk.
Yeah, I get you, though what @Scriptos said is true, instead of making temporary solutions, they should work on an alternative before removing the feature completly.
I personally feel like the minority in this situation, as many people have expressed their happiness for this change. I on the other hand used private modules as one of few primary sources of income. I can no longer sell my product because no temporary or long-term fix was released after this announcement. People could simply copy my code, change it, re-release it, and because it is a paid service, these things are not meant to happen.
Making my module public is also not viable because by checking “Allow Copying” which is necessary to make modules public, you give all users rights to take, modify, etc your code. This voids the copyright you are given when publishing a private module. If someone were to steal my product, I could not do anything about it.
This is not okay. I have really been trying to push for a solution or something but nobody listened to what I had to say. I often feel like the features we are given to provide a better economy across the board are being restricted simply because some people are being malicious.
I have no control over who takes my code and re-sells it and that is a large loss in profit for me. It discourages me to develop on this platform in many ways.
I also believe that some people think that making games or contributing to games is one of the only ways to make profit on the platform. However, as I have described above, that is not true. Providing a service to other games for a fee was an option before this change. This change has essentially ruined an entire method of making money on Roblox.
What I said on my flagged post is basically this, but in a way more…truthful… than what people don’t want to see. This change will discourage people from developing and be a damaging factor to the developer base on roblox. If they would listen to their community and respect the feedback, this could go very differently.
Roblox should not be able to completely remove a feature without providing some sort of middle ground that compensates. This change hurt at least one developer, which is in my opinion one developer too many. Even if their compensation did not allow me to continue selling my product, it still would mean that they care about coming up with something to allow the majority of people impacted by this change to continue updating their product on the platform.
I fully agree. I disagree that they are removing a feature so widely used and not providing an alternative until the end of the year. This ruins a lot of services (as stated numerous times).
Lots of people here rely on private modules, maybe if there could be a way of denying certain actions of the module (e.g. you deny the module to create a new Instance for example) that could prevent backdoors to be inserted into games.
Maybe there could be a permission level that you set while requiring the module, for example
This would be hard to work with and there wouldnt be enough permission settings for certain modules, but it could be a temporary solution until an alternative method has been developed.
I think having a toggle function to allow Private Modules is one of the better suggestions i’ve seen.
One argument made against it is that people don’t know what they’re getting into when clicking “YES” to turn them on, but again, why are we limiting the community because people can’t do basic research into private modules and how they can positively and negatively benefit the community.
What is “basic research” into a closed-source module you have 0 control over?
I would prefer a permission system as it gives you more control over what the module can do in your game and you can stop it from inserting malicious models etc into your game while it still serves its function.
“Basic Research” is knowing that they can harm your game and to trust the individual who owns the private module.
I agree. I think that this would be another great alternative to completely wiping out Private Modules.