Yeah I was hoping for a multiplayer goldfish-style experience, maybe something like tabletop simulator. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but this doesn't seem to be any better than the built in archidekt/moxfield tools
at the risk of being the shill but i think its helpful and what you are looking for, https://untap.in/ does this, solo play both mirror play your deck AND deck vs deck where you play 2 decks as one player, alternating turns.
I can't find sources for "tens of thousands of rockets just since oct 7", can you help me? I see a few thousand as parts of exchanges after the Israel-initiated "12 Days War", and then a few thousand more after the (also Israel-initiated) current conflagration. Notably, the rocket attacks stopped during peace talks that US and Israel entered after starting the wars, only to resume after those peace talks were betrayed with bombing.
The 9,500 figure was for all fronts, not just Gaza. But true, it does include some Hamas rockets, most of which are not exactly "Iranian" (although Iran helped with training and smuggling some parts).
> Since the start of the war, 13,200 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. Another 12,400 were fired from Lebanon, while 60 came from Syria, 180 from Yemen and 400 from Iran, the military said.
So 12,400 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah, the vast majority of which are supplied by Iran at no cost. That's just in one year and doesn't include drones.
Two things to note there. One, many did make a peep; I have friends, coworkers who both ardently discussed and even pointlessly protested in small groups with signs.
The other - I don't pay taxes to the Azeris, every moment of my productive life doesn't support the genocide there, and my soul is in some way not as blackened by the atrocities there. I think people care about Palestine because they rightly feel complicity. Maybe Russian citizens - whose labor indirectly goes to supporting Azeri atrocities - are up in arms?
Ads? It's not great for users but it's decent monetization. If you really have something good, like actually liked, you can do a donation vs ad-supported model.
I’ve ran the numbers and the APIs I have to pay for would be more expensive. I’ve tried caching the data which works to some degree but still a negative unless I really degrade the experience
Probably some fraction of the civilians blown up by Israeli terrorist phone strikes and bombing raids; there's a reason Hezbollah maintains some level of support in the region.
Post-appstore cut it's 42%, which is high but doesn't seem crazy. The unsuccessful attempts and idle piddling all need to be subsidized to allow the successes to exist in the first place, and I suspect we all know better than to undercount cloud, hosting, SRE, and staffing costs. They're all ongoing and pretty painful, and getting a shot at creating something with effectively zero downside risk (vs making a game in Godot and building/buying all of the other parts yourself or with staff) will always come with a lower upside.
> Further there’s no App Store cut when people buy this stuff on PC.
Plenty of PC Roblox users use a version of Roblox downloaded through the Microsoft Store, whom charge a 12% cut on all money spent on gaming apps <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/publish/publi...>. The only place where no app store cut applies is when purchasing Roblox products through the non-Microsoft Store PC app or through the website. Surprise, doing this gets the user ~20% more Robux than buying through an app store <https://www.roblox.com/upgrades/robux>.
If a user buys Robux through a platform where the app store fee isn't charged, then it isn't charged to developers either because the user will receive, and thus spend, more Robux. Creator rewards work differently to ensure that developers owning experiences played primarily by app store users aren't unfairly punished by this <https://create.roblox.com/docs/creator-rewards>.
The default app store cut for most other platforms (Google Play, Apple App Store) that Roblox operates on is 30% (and similar for other distribution platforms, such as Steam), so in the grander scheme 12% isn't even that ridiculous. Including payment processing fees, this averages out to the 22% mentioned at <https://create.roblox.com/docs/monetize-experiences> for all of Roblox's sales.
> 1 / 0.7 = 43% more money.
Can you clarify where the 0.7 is from? My assumption is that it's from the 30% fee charged by some app stores, though not every app store charges the same fee so not using an average figure isn't truly representative of how much more money Roblox & its developers would actually earn in the event that there were no such fees.
> except it clearly show the kind of Hollywood accounting going on in their other posts.
Do point out mistakes if you see any, I would be happy to correct them (-: I made another comment on how different methods of purchasing Robux affects the value at <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340570> if that helps clear things up.
First no mention of the float between purchase of Roblox and transactions, but whatever platforms regularly pull that one.
As to Hollywood accounting. There is no single exchange rate between dollars and Roblox on a platform, a 5$ purchase = 5:4 on App Store, but a 100$ purchase is a 1:1. https://www.roblox.com/upgrades/robux
Of course they ignore this only saying app stores and payment platforms get a 22% cut. Ok sure you have some average numbers of Roblox per dollar and then work out an exchange rate sure that’s reasonable.
But wait on that page: users can now receive up to 25% more Robux when purchasing through gift cards, computer, or web. This extra Robux translates into higher revenue shares on Robux purchased on those channels. (As high as 25% or less than 7%) So now they aren’t averaging the exchange rate instead doing yet another calculation even though a 20$ purchase on their store has a worse exchange rate than a 200$ purchase on the App Store…
Meanwhile an account with 6k Roblox at time of purchase may have been filled by some gift cards and some App Store purchases at different ratios over time while the user is spending money on the platform meaning that 6k doesn’t actually correspond cleanly to either App Store or gift cards Roblox…
But like trust US bro even if we aren’t saying what the actual formula is it’s fine. I can’t help but wonder what the actual numbers look like if such a lopsided deal is still presented with such weasel wording.
> I was being sarcastic with my how ridiculous post.
I see. I apologise for failing to pick that up.
> There is no single exchange rate between dollars and Roblox on a platform
> Meanwhile an account with 6k Roblox at time of purchase may have been filled by some gift cards and some App Store purchases at different ratios over time while the user is spending money on the platform meaning that 6k doesn’t actually correspond cleanly to either App Store or gift cards Roblox
Indeed there is not any single fiat -> Robux exchange rate, nor has there ever been. I don't have any reason to believe this is a bad state of affairs, and you've provided most of the reason for why there isn't. Even on platforms with no app store fees, there will still be payment processing fees, which the larger "better-value" packages exist to reduce these fees to give more money to developers in the case that there's a flat fee for each transaction.
> Ok sure you have some average numbers of Roblox per dollar and then work out an exchange rate sure that’s reasonable.
If the target is to have a consistent exchange rate, maybe this is doable for new Robux entering the platform. Perhaps moreso given that the price of Robux has remained remarkably consistent over the years, in no small part due to the various fees on the platform (mainly the Marketplace fee and experience pass/product fees) protecting it from hyperinflation. Yet there are billions of Robux already in the economy that don't follow these rules.
The Robux spent on an experience is probably earned from the purchase of Robux or Roblox Premium at a variable package exchange rate, also dependent on the currency of purchase. But it could be from Creator Rewards <https://create.roblox.com/docs/creator-rewards>, with the amount differing depending on when the player joined the platform and how many experiences they played that day. Or it could be old Robux from a package with an exchange rate that no longer exists. Or it could be from the Robux already paid out to an experience, which the experience developer decided to spend on another experience, thoroughly blending any previously distinct exchange rates. Or it could be from the legacy pre-2016 currency exchange system and not have any defined exchange rate. Or it could be from a user who previously owned a lifetime Builder's Club subscription, which is now grandfathered in to Roblox Premium, and receives Robux monthly despite only making a one-time payment.
My point here is to demonstrate that attempting to create such a fiat -> Robux exchange rate figure isn't really feasible, or that if one did exist it wouldn't be accurate. Nor would I think it to be particularly useful either; the main exchange rate that matters to developers is the Robux -> fiat one (for how much Robux is going into their experiences and how much they can DevEx from it), which is very clear and very well-defined – since September 2025, it's 0.0038 USD per Robux <https://create.roblox.com/dashboard/devex>.
> even if we aren’t saying what the actual formula is it’s fine. I can’t help but wonder what the actual numbers look like
The chart on the monetisation section of the creator documentation represents the "estimated utilization of each dollar spent in an experience on Roblox". Roblox has calculated this from their total user spending on Robux, the total Robux spent on games (which has also been through the experience pass/product fees clearly mentioned at the bottom of that page), and their total other expenditure (developer costs & support + their own share & investment), because as seen above, they don't have a consistent exchange rate to calculate player purchases based solely on the amount of Robux in circulation.
We don't have to trust them. We can make an educated guess right here based on the analytical data Roblox provides, both for the entire platform & tailored to each experience, the price of Robux, and the DevEx rate. This is far from the data we need to make a precise prediction, though we can still get a ballpark estimate and check it against Roblox's own figures.
The most popular Robux package is the 1000 Robux one. Well, not really, it turns out it's actually the Premium 1000 subscription, which for the same sales price provides 1000 Robux alongside Creator Rewards for the experiences they join for the next 60 days. This could be anywhere from 0 to 3 * 5 * 60 = 900 Robux <https://create.roblox.com/docs/creator-rewards>, alongside a 35% share of what they spent on the package if they're a new or returning user.
The price for Premium subscriptions and Robux packages differs regionally. For me, it's 9.99 GBP for Premium 1000, whereas in the US, where most Roblox users are based <https://create.roblox.com/docs/production/roblox-user-base>, it's 9.99 USD. We'll go with the 9.99 USD figure as it's most likely what a paying user is actually spending and it's in the same currency as the DevEx return rate.
Assume a user that purchases such a subscription then spends all 1000 Robux on one or more passes or products inside of an experience. We'll assume that the creator of the pass/product is the same as the creator of the experience, so the 10% affiliate fee + 60% creator earnings makes for 70% for the experience developer, with the remaining 30% taken by the platform. This could just as easily be substituted for anything else with an equivalent 70% fee, such as Marketplace products at their lowest fee rate, or plugins/paid access priced in Robux (pricing these in local currency wouldn't be subject to the DevEx fees). This deposits a total of 1000 * 70%, or 700 Robux, into the accounts/ownership groups of the experience creators. Assuming the developers immediately take this Robux and exchange it, this will give them fiat. This results in a total of 700 * the DevEx rate of 0.0038, or 2.66 USD. This is profit for the developer.
Now for the Creator Rewards. We'll start with the maximum possible Daily Engagement Rewards of 450 Robux. This goes directly to experience creators, with no Marketplace/product fee, who will DevEx it to produce 450 * 0.0038 = 1.71 USD. This is the maximum possible figure and is almost never actually achieved on the platform. Next up, the Audience Expansion Rewards, which will be 9.99 USD * 35%, or 3.50 USD, if and only if the user is new or returning to the platform.
To sum it up, this is 2.66 from DevEx + up to 1.71 from Daily Engagement + maybe 3.50 from Audience Expansion. The DevEx figure is now correct, whereas the Daily Engagement and Audience Expansion figures could use some work.
From the most recent statistics available, Roblox has 36.7 million paying Monthly Active Users, or Monthly Unique Payers <https://ir.roblox.com/financials/quarterly-results>. However, only about 37.7%, or 13.8 million of these, are Daily Active Users. Thus we'll assume our average Premium subscriber is active 37.7% of the time, or about 11.5 days each month, so 22 of every 60 days. If they play only 1 experience a day, this is 5 * 22 = 110 Robux, or 110 * 0.0038 = 0.418 USD, and if they play 3, that's 3 * 5 * 22 = 330, or 330 * 0.0038 = 1.254 USD. To reiterate where these numbers came from, Daily Engagement is 5 Robux per day for 60 days after purchase, given to each experience played for more than 10 total minutes, with a maximum of 3. We're multiplying this by the DevEx rate as we assume that's what the developer does with it upon reception.
So 2.66 + 0.418 = 3.078 USD for the lower average, which we'll use for these calculation purposes, from DevEx specifically. That's the best estimate I can give with the time I have, the Audience Expansion figure I'll leave off entirely as it doesn't go through DevEx and I can't give any specific statistics for when it happens other than "sometimes".
So, normalised per in-experience dollar spent, that's a rough estimate of 3.078 / 9.99 = 30.8% which is exchanged through the Developer Exchange programme to be given to developers as profit. Compared to the 25-28% that Roblox shows on their Monetisation documentation page (pre-increase, this would be 27-31% now, also given there's some overlap with the Creator Rewards section of the chart which we also calculated the figures for), it's pretty close, without having to trust any of their figures (apart from their own earnings reports, which are heavily scrutinised and legally required to be sufficiently accurate). The remaining portion is split between Roblox and the developer, at a rate probably similar to that shown in the same chart. The same could be done for any developer which has a more accurate figure of Audience Expansion Rewards or Extended Services usage payments to work out more of the areas in the same chart.
> such a lopsided deal is still presented with such weasel wording.
It is very clear to any developer with experience with Roblox's economic system that this isn't at all lopsided, and is in fact fairly balanced. Based on an educated perception of an average user, I've derived similar figures to what is shown on their monetisation documentation, so I have strong reason to believe that they're accurate. If we want our very own estimates, the amount taken by the developer through DevEx is "about" 30%, and the amount taken by Roblox for their own investment is similar. This leaves "about" 40% to be spent on the developers for their own infrastructure. No real developer needs to calculate these figures for themselves, I've just done so here solely for demonstration purposes.
The combined payment of services and profit is the full package of what's provided by Roblox and it would be uninformed to claim it as anything else or try to say that the developer paying for their own similar services would be far more cost-effective. None of this is weasel wording nor exploitative of developers on Roblox's part. It's just a different deal with more supportive ways of earning and different parties paying for the same resources. If one were to prefer this deal, they should use the platform. If they don't, they shouldn't. It's not better or worse for either party, it's just different.
> Or it could be from a user who previously owned a lifetime Builder's Club subscription, which is now grandfathered in to Roblox Premium, and receives Robux monthly despite only making a one-time payment.
> My point here is to demonstrate that attempting to create such a fiat -> Robux exchange rate figure isn't really feasible, or that if one did exist it wouldn't be accurate. Nor would I think it to be particularly useful either; the main exchange rate that matters to developers is the Robux -> fiat one (for how much Robux is going into their experiences and how much they can DevEx from it), which is very clear and very well-defined – since September 2025, it's 0.0038 USD per Robux <https://create.roblox.com/dashboard/devex>.
If there is not some USD -> Robux calculation then there’s no way to say what percentage payout 0.0038 USD per Robux represents.
Ultimately the company can create Robux from thin air, what matters is the total amount created year vs the total money coming into the system each year. IE company could give every player some free Robux it’s just adding 0$ USD -> X Robux to the average.
Which is why the statement about treating some exchanges differently is so sketchy in terms of calculating what percentage a developer keeps.
Chinese demand is increasing just like everyone else's, and they're both retiring older less efficient plants and using fossil fuels as both peaker and baseline generation. But coal utilization overall, despite massive growth in energy demand, is basically flat in China. There's plenty of reason to build out coal capacity to keep grids stabilized while you transition to solar and wind (China finished their 2030 1200GW solar capacity target 6 years early in 2024 and continue to grow that number at an incredible rate).
I agree that new coal sucks but it's a very easy talking point for westerners like us to latch onto when our own contributions to emissions remain way over 50% higher per capita - despite much of the manufacturing and such not happening in our countries.
> But coal utilization overall, despite massive growth in energy demand, is basically flat in China.
"Basically flat" only after running up an exponential curve so that coal consumption is now higher per capita in China than it is in the US and China is generating ~60% of its electricity from coal compared to ~16% in the US.
> I agree that new coal sucks but it's a very easy talking point for westerners like us to latch onto when our own contributions to emissions remain way over 50% higher per capita
You don't even get to say "westerners" anymore. CO2 emissions are higher per capita in China than they are in Europe because they burn such a disproportionate amount of coal, and are only lower than the US and Canada because the US and Canada burn more oil per capita from being so spread out.
Sure but they don't burn oil because they don't have oil. So focus on fossil fuels in general, or emissions rather than just coal specifically - again it's not good to add new coal plants but they're growth negative. And EU has done an admirable job of reducing their emissions, with help of course from Chinese manufacturing of pv cells etc.
Is this another one of those weird bot posts I've been hearing about? 3 paragraphs, low-content but apparently interesting, ~50 points new account?
@dang what's HN's position here, I feel like my paranoia is going to ruin the shreds of authenticity that underpinned real engagement on this site. It's a giga-eternal September, and idk how one can moderate this in a way that earns trust and buyin from the humans among us (I swear I'm a human, look no third paragraph).
Definitely not a bot or ai touched at all or ESL. And reading the comment as I wrote it, it definitely read oddly to me too! Maybe I’ve accidentally created a mini dododo land here with the comment..
I take a little offense to the low content. Maybe low effort, but I feel like the references were worthwhile and for a reply-less post (at the time) I thought soranews24 deserved more attention. It is a very weird and good site to me. And I guess I wanted to address the content of the article at least a little with my comment. I read dododo as the bird.
I appreciate the comment saying Meow Wolf is a cash grab. I kinda agree but I’m glad it exists. And the cracked citation, I agree it’s a kindred spirit. (What’s the deal with 3rd paragraphs?)
I didn’t think it was a bot, but I think a good rule is when in doubt, just move along. There are times when it’s necessary to verify the authenticity of the things you read, but this is not one of them. Certainly nothing worth getting paranoid about.
> I feel like my paranoia is going to ruin the shreds of authenticity that underpinned real engagement on this site.
That’s a you problem.
You can either tell or you can’t. I don’t know what to say other than some people have this way of thinking intrinsic and some do not. I’m not sure it can be trained. The moderators of HN do appear to have it, Dan certainly does: I’ve had a few direct interactions with him. Tom I don’t know, never interacted with them.
Let's be honest here, the erosion of trust spans across this and other sides. And your strong beliefs that you have 100% predicitve precision and recall smacks of self serving reasoning. Inspect your own priors and move forward, fellow human.
reply