[rtkwe]

Roblox takes their 75% cut out of each sale then if you ever manage to accumulate the 100,000 Robux needed to cash out ($1000 worth for what Roblox sells it for) you only get $350. They're double dipping their cut. You should really watch the video it lays out the case very well.

If it's meant to be educational it shouldn't be marketing itself as a way to make money or charging kids to promote their app. It would have better ways to surface new applications instead of only showing the top N that already have to have over a thousand users.

[testudovictoria]

To combine the numbers:

Roblox takes 75% of each sale. This means the developer needs to make 400,000 in Robux sales before the developer accumulates 100,000 Robux for cash withdrawal.

If 100,000 Robux is sold for $1,000, and 100,000 Robux only nets the developer $350, then the double dip gives Roblox a net 91.25% of developer sales. This excludes any applicable taxes or app store fees.

[bemmu]

They don't combine like that, because the 75% already takes into account the double dip.

User spends $100 USD to buy 10000 robux. User buys item for 10000 robux in a game. Developer of game gets 7000 robux (dip #1). Developer of game withdraws to USD. 100000 robux = $350 (dip #2) so developer gets $24.5 USD.

Overall 24.5/100 = 24.5%.

In reality the numbers don't always come exactly to this, because robux can cost different amounts to buy depending on the amount, and there are PayPal/wire transfer fees when withdrawing.

[Akronymus]

Thats only for one transacrion between users though.For every additional transaction the money goes through, the roblox takes even more of a cut.

[robocat]

The video mentioned you must also have a premium account at $5/month, so conservatively 7 months is another $35 down.

And presumably you have to pay for the premium account before you withdraw, so you are investing real cash for a chance of a payout?

[tyleo]

I’ll have to watch the video. It looks like there is some missing context in the article alone.

Still not sure how I feel. On the fence but leaning more good than bad. The thing I cant get past is “what else would a kid do with their time?” Even if its not a great way to make money, it seems like a better use of time than what I did. It just seems like it still provides a strong learning opportunity.

I think there may be a different argument about whether it exploits developers generally and not just kids.

[kortilla]

The argument you’re making could just as easily be applied to having kids “compete cleaning tables at a restaurant” where the winner for the day gets $10.

Once money is in the equation, all of the incentives change and it’s not about “learning opportunities” or fun.

[PoignardAzur]

Play Minecraft?

Learn a programming language and write small games in Unity/Godot/whatever? Make levels in LittleBigPlanet/Dreams?

To be fair, those options can get exploitative too, but Roblox feels on another level. The only time I played Roblox, I distinctly remember thinking "the only people who would put money into this are kids who don't know any better".

[Tostino]

It can be a "good" for the child, while still being exploitative. Take care of the exploitation, and don't destroy the "good" parts. I don't think it's an entirely binary situation.

[stuaxo]

The comparison to being paid in scrip you could only use in the company store is spot on.

[dtagames]

Microsoft MakeCode (here's MakeCode Arcade[0], just one aspect) is a terrific gaming platform which teaches standard Typescript (using a Scratch-type interface). It doesn't offer monetization of any kind so they can honestly advertise for the pure creative, maker, and educational markets. And they do!

[0] https://arcade.makecode.com/

[rtkwe]

Yeah there’s definitely a cool niche there for an easy to use tool to build games in a way that deals with the mess of networking and servers that isn’t just siphoning all the money away from the users at every turn.