I always get messed up on that one, thanks for correcting me
I stand corrected
1 Like
From leaks it looks like you can disable the animations which I hope is true
1 Like
Dynamic heads are still overpriced than their classic face counterpart though. Not everyone wants the ability to animate their faces bundled with something that could have been purchased with 2-digits prices.
4 Likes
I’ve heard conflicting information on what’s going to happen to people who haven’t purchased a classic phase prior to the animated version going on sale. many people in the Roblox community, especially those who are close to Roblox staff, have publicly said both that classic faces are not going to be obtainable to new users who did not get them originally, and others are saying that all animated faces will simply be able to go back to the original. I still am unclear myself on which one is correct.
1 Like
I wish there was a dislike button, this post being the only specific reason being for this request lol.
5 Likes
i think whats going to happen is all faces will be transitioned into animated faces, even the ones in your inventory, but they will have the added option of being a decal
I have heard that, and the mock-up showing a dynamic head switch is promising. however, I still am not entirely sure what this will mean for new users.
if the optimistic answer is the correct one here, though, this is shaping up to be a really great Roblox update
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say its amazing update exactly, I gauge it closer to how the layered clothing went (not many people like/use it), but it is a major improvement over what was originally shown and that makes it an, ehhhh, okay update.
Roblox could’ve stopped this by just telling us all the info rather than withholding as much info as possible 
But with purchased, do they mean we only for already ones that cost Robux or even few ones?
thanks roblox for letting me know that an American billionaire company will use my camera every time I play roblox + even more battery drain, I really appreciate the updates which are a laugh and nothing else.
2 Likes
another useless update decided by investors instead of the community, all hail soulless corporation #592
7 Likes
People in this post cannot read.
I have no idea why so many people don’t realize that:
- Your camera isn’t going to turn on by itself
- You can change your head shape to how it was, so your accessories won’t be messed up
- You can disable dynamic heads to turn your face back into a “static” expression
And judging that these features seem to be in beta testing, Roblox was planning to release these anyway. I think they may have jumped the gun in announcing this update, but it was planned at the start for players to select a head shape and move accessories. These features don’t just materialize in a few days.
2 Likes
I really do not understand why you guys are forcing this update to us…
I mean don’t get me wrong the Idea SOUNDS cool but the execution is terrible…
Instead of taking all faces off-sale, make a separate category, so that people that WANT to use these can use them.
There is no absolute reason to do this. Most of the community doesn’t even use these faces in the first place! ( Except people that wear them )
First we had to verify our Identification for voice chat or whatever, and now we need to trust a company with our real life camera movements for silly avatar animations? Although these are optional, I’d love if this was also optional, although it doesn’t seem like it when we are going to be forced to use these by next year.
Taking the faces that were uploaded since the dawn of time and were seen as legacy off-sale, you’re basically taking a part of history, which nobody likes to be honest. ( Not blinded by nostalgia, just really confused )
I love these small ideas but please focus on OTHER things instead of forcing an update that barely anyone uses.
We were told an update to the audio last year, oh well guess that didn’t happen.
We were told a few other cools things, guess these also magically didn’t happen…
TLDR: Cool idea but terrible execution like I said.
1 Like
Another originally awesome face claimed…
and no expression check it is literally just an asian roblox character
12 Likes
This is a very bad idea. The dynamic faces DO NOT support R6 and they look out of place. Please put the classic faces back on sale and please don’t repeat past mistakes (rthro).
5 Likes
I don’t think you understand what you’re saying here.
You own the intellectual property of the games you publish. Of course there’s fine print for engines such as Unity or Unreal, but those kinds of agreements aren’t something developers have to accept for game design as a whole for every modern game engine.
If you take your business elsewhere, and you aren’t publishing unsavory content, you retain rights to what you publish, depending on the distribution platform of choice.
Have you heard of peer-to-peer networking, or community-hosted servers? Older COD games like WaW are no longer possible to play legitimately without community mods, and it’s because of how the game was compiled. You don’t need centralized servers to have a multiplayer game up forever, and you don’t need servers for single-player games either.
Again, depending on the choice of distribution service, which is at the developers’ discretion, you may do this. My point was to illustrate that streaming content is not the only way that games work, and you don’t seem to have understood why I brought this up in the first place.
In which case the developer base will move on, and such a choice could impact Epic financially. There are alternative engines besides Unity or Unreal which show no signs of going away, and neither do these engines given their hold on the industry. No company worth their salt would even entertain the idea of closing off a stream of revenue.
What’s happening now is gross negligence on the part of Roblox higher-ups, ignoring community feedback, and failing to uphold their promises. The mistreatment of the developer base is telling enough that Roblox does not actually care.
Also, my point here was to illustrate the importance of preservation, something that Roblox does not care for, either. Decades of Roblox’s digital history will go by the wayside, with each weekly update deteriorating the games on its platform. This is a very bad thing for any living piece of software - you don’t see this anywhere serious programmers work.
And even if a codebase has to be refactored, you are typically not forced into accepting an update which breaks code.
This whole tirade of mine is trying to illustrate that Roblox forces change onto the community, and unless you’ve been conditioned to feel okay about that, any developer who wants to do serious work should choose a serious game engine. Until Roblox changes their methodology with regard to updates to their engine and platform, which I don’t see happening, I don’t see any reason why rational game developers would want to waste their time with apathetic management.
8 Likes
The fact that it can enable your camera at any time
I mostly agree with your post, but there are a few points I’d like to comment on.
Nearly every update has some way to opt-out, and this update is no different. You can disable animated heads/faces in your own game. Animated heads are also optional in general (for now, and hopefully forever). Though I will say that it’s a bit much to require all devs to stay up-to-date with all changes at all times. This is why I would suggest that most new features, mainly those that would actually cause things to potentially break, should be opt-out by default. This does seem to be the case for a lot of things thankfully, but I would like to see it applied more often.
I don’t find this to be all that true. The only update to truly destroy that much history was the FilteringEnabled update, which was obviously a much needed update that had to happen. I would argue that it actually gives the original devs a chance to re-release their games as well, if they so choose. Or for new devs to try their own spin on classic games.
This part I won’t deny. Many of their choices have been less than ideal, and I hope to see continued improvement in this area. However, as long as new updates remain optional and have the ability to opt-out, I’ll still be satisfied. Though I won’t stop wishing that Roblox focus more on features that players, and especially devs, are asking for.
I don’t think this is entirely true, though not entirely false either. But the main thing is that it’s simply unrealistic. To preserve every game in a playable state, it would need to remember the version used. That alone is fine, but it’s the fact that this is an always-online platform that’s the issue. You can’t just have outdated versions existing when there are live services and policies to keep functional and up to standard. This is why having new feature updates opt-out by default is ideal. However, this excludes essential updates like the FilteringEnabled update.
You should also keep in mind the services that Roblox provide to you. That includes infinite data storage, infinite server hosting, currency/sale system, cross-platform, and plenty of other services. (Obviously I don’t mean truly infinite, but you get the idea.) I won’t deny that Roblox has some downsides, but these services are also very useful. That is why I, for one, choose to continue using Roblox.
5 Likes
My counterpoints were mainly from the perspective of the player, since I myself would consider myself more of a player than a developer (I really only develop for fun once in a while.) But thanks for the reply nonetheless!
Most features that get phased-out go through a sunset before either deprecation or a plain refactor.
You have to create BodyMovers via commands or scripts to place them in the explorer, which is irksome since there are no complete analogs between those and the new physics constraints.
The My Feed page is gone, making group shouts pointless.
The animation update is no longer opt-out, and the sound update was promised to be addressed further but there has been no indication of commitment towards that.
All of these are cases of Roblox just not caring enough to keep things consistent across versions, which is very disappointing coming from a billion dollar company.
That is true, though not every game from yesteryear gets its deserved justice. Some developers just don’t care enough to upkeep their games, and the third parties who have the capability to spin them may not even be aware of some older games.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on this. Unless direction changes at Roblox, I don’t see this happening any time soon.
Are we unable to have versions of the engine from certain time periods? Before Roblox did to Finobe what Nintendo did to Brick Bronze, Finobe had older versions of Roblox available to use. Why can’t Roblox do the same? With the functionally “infinite” resources you claim they may have, shouldn’t they also be able to host older versions of Roblox just the same, if not exceeding what Finobe had?
All of this to say that I distrust Roblox, given their repertoire. An update like this is sure to put more work on developers if they just want to keep things the way they were, probably beyond just a simple boolean property in the Players class.
5 Likes