Dang that sucks. I feel like if Roblox is making these restrictions they should make a way for the games to be able to meet the requirements. However I completely understand Roblox’s decision here and respect they care about the kids and their parents
I wouldn’t consider meepcity a loophole they’ve existed way before this rule and probably has to change in the coming weeks. (the new update with bios is horrendous though and should be removed/restricted)
Bathroom Roleplay is definitely trying to circumvent the new guidelines, but they may still be violating the guidelines as the game has to actually have suitable roles (I haven’t checked though maybe they have some “janitor” role or something)
1 Like
It’s still a type of game that will not have to change to 13+ as it is technically a roleplay game, but the players use it as more of a vibe place again following the recent status update.
Now combine this with an ingame avatar editor and a main location everyone goes to hangout (e.g uphill in da hood) and there’s a problem.
Roblox created a policy where they can take action on a game for alot of users violating tos in it but never actually enforced it.
(I think, this is not clear and would be stupid any other way)
The role thing is a general idea/example of how a game would be considered roleplay, but not a definite must have. I can’t think of any examples, but there are definetly games you can categorize as roleplaying games without these types of roles and gears.
1 Like
I wish we didn’t have to redo the entire questionnaire from scratch every time Roblox adds a new content descriptor to experience guidelines. This is the second time within 30 days that I’ve had to retake the questionnaire on all my games (“Fear” was added last month).
If the experience already has guidelines set, then the questionnaire should just ask us for only the missing content descriptors instead of having to fill out the entire form all over again. Having to click through so many different questions over and over and over again is really tiring.
2 Likes
Yeah, this the kind of change that only reinforces the notion that my choice to not monetize my games all the way back in 2013 (or whenever Devex was first introduced) was for the best long term. Relying on internet popularity as a primary income source has consistently proven itself to me to always be rather volatile, even if you own the platform. (Granted, I’m sure Roblox is somewhat different from, say, Twitch or YouTube in this regard, but I’ve never been interested enough to look into it more closely.)
Will it be allowed to hide such user-generated content from underaged users to be playable for them? Or I should completely scrap all such things?
The distinction between social hangouts being on the chopping board but not roleplaying/simulation games is extremely arbitrary and is definitely going to be a huge underlying issue.
There’s going to 100% be an arbitrary line in the sand of which game goes in which category, and that’s going to upset a lot of people.
Realistically a lot of people are gonna see this and just pivot their social hangout games into a “roleplaying game” with the most minimal effort of change just to avoid this arbitrary cut off of potential players.
This is definitely setting a dangerous precedent
1 Like
doesnt UGC go through moderation, just as the post says?..
This isn’t cool, and I don’t get the purpose behind this change. You’re limiting the majority of my fanbase from accessing my game, for what??
This change effectively kills a drawing-based project my team has been working on for the past few months & invalidates the hours we’ve spent designing safeguards (like reporting & hiding capabilities for all UGC), right ahead of our launch.
It also fails to address the fundamental issues (what’s stopping these malicious users from building genitalia in 3D!?!?) at the core of this issue, meaning that it kills specific games for no specific reason. Thanks Roblox 
Hi, one of the creators of Vibe Station here; currently working on a sequel. The free-form user content change is good, along with the questionnaire (which I’ve already been filling out on my experiences for months.) However. This change about restricting <13yo users from “hangout experiences” is extremely tone-deaf and comes off as a change made to satisfy angry parents without actually solving any issues. I agree something needs to be done about the issues surrounding minors socializing on the platform but this change will hurt a lot of innocent developers while providing a ton of leeway for bad actors to skirt around the rules.
Why is the restriction criteria based on a descriptor of the game rather than the content? The only distinction you’ve clearly stated is that roleplay games are not social hangouts. What’s stopping me from labeling my vibe game as a roleplay game?
Is Adopt Me a hangout? What about Bloxburg? Both of these experiences have player housing where players have private spaces with the option to restrict who can and cannot enter. Do players just sit in these houses together in silence? The sequel I am working on has player housing but with the caveat that <13yo players cannot access it. Does this make it akin to a game like Bloxburg or is it a vibe game because it has Vibe in the name?
Our original experience has props that players can hold.
Does this mean it’s a roleplay game? Or is it a vibe game?
If I add some random element (e.g. skin collecting, minigames) and claim that is the primary purpose without changing any of the social elements of the game, does that mean <13yo players can access it?
All of these questions boil down to this:
Does this actually protect young players in social settings?
If you ask me, I’d say no. Not in any meaningful or lasting way. This doesn’t adequately protect them because it doesn’t address the actual problem. If it’s because of mature settings (such as real life settings or gritty themes as opposed to something like Royale High) attracting both young and old players then make that clear. If it’s about them interacting in private settings, make that clear.
Parents have the option to disable communication for their <13yo children on the platform, can we not do everything in our power to provide them with the tools to monitor their child’s activity? Why is a vague blanket ban preferable to case-by-case handling of games? If I’m able to identify the places in my experience where these kinds of interactions happen (such as public areas that lead to private areas like player housing) why can’t you? The fact that you have to clarify that roleplay games are not included in the restriction shows that these exact same elements occur in other (innocent) experiences but the branding is being targeted over the content because those who are not intimate with the platform point fingers at whatever they see first instead of the root cause of the issue.
This change clearly shows that Roblox is sick of trying to moderate every single interaction in every single experience with how diverse and varied these can be. It’s hard to do. So why not put the power in the hands of the parents who’s responsibility it is to keep their children safe, including online? Why is punishing developers based on arbitrary and vague criteria preferable to expanding the ways parents can engage with their child’s interactions online? If you really want parents to feel safe having their children on the platform, you need to include them in the discussion and you need to provide them with the tools that let them be in control of their child’s online experience. Part of why so many parents are outraged at these social hangouts and vibe games is because they don’t know better, they don’t know the root cause and they often don’t even know that games on the platform are created by individual developers and not the platform itself.
If Roblox wants to be a platform for all ages, it needs to show they have the capacity to accommodate the needs of all age demographics. In the case of <13yo users, this means lifting the veil of privacy and letting parents in on what’s happening. You can do this without invading the privacy of older users, and without throwing developers under the bus. Parents aren’t upset about hangout games. They’re upset about the harmful interactions their children are having inside of them. That’s an issue that affects every experience and needs a solution that considers every experience.
Due to this change, the sequel to Vibe Station is going to be severely affected. At the moment it seems we will either have to change the name, alienating our previous player base and making it much harder to build a core community to get the game off the ground; or accept that half of the players on the platform will simply be unable to play our experience. Neither of these affect the social interactions inside the game in any way. It’ll be the same it just won’t fit the arbitrary definition. I think it goes without saying that bad actors will abuse this far more than I ever could.
In the end, this is a bad change not because it doesn’t do anything; we all recognize it’ll do something at first, before bad faith developers skirt around it in the ways I laid out and more. This is a bad change because it doesn’t address the actual issue yet negatively and directly affects developers, while leaving many questioning whether or not their game fits the criteria or if they will be punished.
Please do better. If you keep making poorly thought out decisions that affect developers like this, anyone who cares about the rules will leave and all that will remain is the bad actors you were trying to target in the first place. If I don’t know what the rules are, how am I supposed to follow them?
2 Likes