We have Roblox (kids age 5 and 8). From the start I made a hard "no Robux" rule, which has worked out well so far. This has had a very nice and totally unintended side effect: the kids self select against games that are only fun if you pay.
Eg my youngest likes the clicking simulators. Many of those are awful "pay to win" schemes but some actually have fun game dynamics (not unlike the Paperclip Simulator html game that's an HN favorite[0]). Those are the ones he returns to.
These are the games that are more creative in nature, the games that are more challenging and so on and so forth. I feel that at least 7 out of 10 times I check on them, they're doing a game that involves creation, economics, collaboration, and often multiple of those.
I had that to start with, but now he's older and using the platform to interact with his friends (especially during lockdown), we have relented and now use Robux as incentives for doing chores etc.
Out of curiosity (I have 2 that are into it) what did they 'get' by you relenting and allowing them to spend Robux? Is it just cosmetics or are there certain games/modes/experiences that are only available if you pay?
Some of it is relatively benign cosmetic items for your avatar, like Fortnite. There is definitely a stigma associated with having "bacon hair" which is the default. Or the ability to play on a server with just your friends.
Other times it is a shortcut to stuff that you could get by grinding. $5 gets you twice the XP (experience points) so you can unlock new weapons, levels, etc. Individual games sometimes take this to extremes, I once calculated I would have to play an hour a day for a week to get an item I could unlock for a buck.
The worst ones (Epic Mini-Games, I'm looking at you!) are the ones where you can outright pay to win by breaking the game mechanics. Turn yourself invisible, big honking sword that you can't earn, double your chances of being selected for something special.
For the most part the games are truly free to play. You can play in all the modes that are available to paying customers.
You can also pay for a private server too with robux. My kids earn robux if they do chores or read a book etc... Right now it is a good positive reinforcement reward system.
I'm over 40 and stigma for not spending money was also a thing when I was a kid. I still remember discussions about who had the trendiest school backpack. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, just noticing that it would still be there even if you took a "no videogames" stance.
Not the OP but my kids (8,9) spend allowance on robux. Mostly it lets them build a big house for their friends to come over (in game) and play with them. They pair Roblox with video chat as their online hangout.
Tbh I'm not 100% sure, but I think a bit of both. Given that for quite some time it was his primary means of communication with some of his friends, it felt unnecessarily restrictive not to let him join in fully with what they were up to.
Obviously any major expense was out of the question and he knows that, but seeing as they "run around" their Roblox worlds just like they might run around a playground or wood, it felt a fair compromise. And he learns about having to work for a reward in the process.
ed: I should say I believe there are public groups on Roblox that you have to pay Robux to join. He's not allowed that.
I had some fun with my son (age 7) writing python to beat one of the "clicking" games. I wrote the code but he thought my clicking app was like magic. https://automatetheboringstuff.com/chapter18/
Seems like you'd have to blaze a trail if it did - "The pyautogui module can send virtual keypresses and mouse clicks to Windows, OS X, and Linux. Depending on which operating system you’re using, you may have to install some other modules (called dependencies) before you can install PyAutoGUI."
Not disagreeing with what you did there. But I gave my kids Robux and talked with them about what they wanted to spend it on and let them learn if it was worth it or not (something persistent like an avatar item or some in game item). It was good for them but honestly they spent a couple of bucks each and stopped asking and just keep looking for games that are fun.
> I feel that at least 7 out of 10 times I check on them, they're doing a game that involves creation, economics, collaboration, and often multiple of those.
Could you recommend a few titles that are worth checking out?
I'm fairly sure you're aware that more than 9 out of 10 kids would find Robux-free Roblox immensely more appealing than whatever economic simulations your preternaturally moderate children are taken with.
Ok I'm not sure what "preternaturally" means, but yes I agree that Robux are an awful scam and Roblox would be better without them. That said I'm also not nuts and I realize that Roblox would likely not exist without them.
I'm advocating for picking all the VC-funded (and user-generated) freebies off the platform and giving nothing back. It's like using YouTube with an ad blocker.
That said, I'm not sure I parsed your comment right, so just to clarify: when I say "economic" I mean stuff like "Pizza Tycoon" where you run a restaurant and need to buy stuff with fake money to get more customers etc etc. That's not Robux money, that's 100% in-game fake money that you earn by selling pizzas. Even the better clickers have this dynamic, where you click to get some kinds of points and then you can use the points to buy/build stuff that auto-generates clicks etc. It's not unlike the economies in Starcraft (yeah I'm old) and the likes.
My fault. Resummarizing, you shouldn't take your kids finding "Pizza Tycoon" competitive or even preferable to Roblox (with or without Robux power assists) as applicable to the general population.
Pizza Tycoon is a game in Roblox, how could my kids find it preferable to Roblox? Sorry, I still don't understand what you mean.
I'm sharing something that worked for us, which seems relevant when the thread is full of parents complaining about how Roblox is full of "pay to win" scams. I did not run a scientific study, my sample size is 2. Why are you even assuming that I think my anecdote is generally applicable? I suggested no such thing.
Eg my youngest likes the clicking simulators. Many of those are awful "pay to win" schemes but some actually have fun game dynamics (not unlike the Paperclip Simulator html game that's an HN favorite[0]). Those are the ones he returns to.
These are the games that are more creative in nature, the games that are more challenging and so on and so forth. I feel that at least 7 out of 10 times I check on them, they're doing a game that involves creation, economics, collaboration, and often multiple of those.
[0] https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html