roblox

The age-cutoff is 16, but Roblox has historically been based around kids making games for other kids, which isn't feasible if a subscription becomes required.

I mean we all start somewhere and I find the idea of taking subscription money a little dis-tasteful for Roblox to do.

TFA: > Publish for personal use - Anyone on Roblox can continue to publish games for personal use.

Not as polished as Roblox Studio but the zero-install property is the whole ballgame for kids sharing with friends.

Here's an editorialized title in the other direction: On Roblox everyone can make games and play them with their friends.

Younger students are learning Luau via Roblox -- spoke with a middle schooler on Sunday who was making games with his friends.

My point is, many people around me or online really really love roblox and they even start to code because of it.

A kid playing Roblox can spend more than that in a good weekend.

Yes it makes sense when you apply it to adults, but Roblox was made for kids to share and play with other kids.

The closest thing to the Roblox distribution model is browser games.

He loves hacking on Lua code in the Roblox game.

The age check is part of Roblox as a whole.

The headline is correct - you have to have "an active Roblox Plus subscription".

Here's my suggestion for an amendement: "Roblox devs will need plus membership to publish to young users"

Asking me questions like "what is Lua" because he wants to mod roblox.

The serious ones, yes Roblox is already an experiences cesspool and should have dropped the “every kid should be an entrepreneur” thing a long time ago.

Isn't Roblox, for example, operating massive building online universe for kids and somehow solves this problem without godzillion of moderators?

If Lego can't do it themselves - just, you know, acquire Roblox.

But the term 'Roblox Devs' can also include other children.