Recently, I found myself sitting across from an earnest 11-year-old who was excitedly telling me about the game he was building in Roblox. His eyes lit up when he mentioned that one day, his creation might make him “tons of money, just like those other Roblox developers.”

I smiled and nodded, but inside I felt a twinge of discomfort. As a game designer who’s spent over a decade studying how games and economies interact, I knew something this child didn’t: the financial deck is stacked heavily against him.

Of course, someone would be making “a ton of money” from his activity on the platform (and other kids like him) but that someone would be Roblox itself.

This conversation wasn’t new to me. Over the years, I’ve heard similar dreams from countless children, their parents, and even educators who’ve bought into Roblox’s carefully crafted narrative about empowering young creators. It’s a powerful story: kids learning coding, developing entrepreneurial skills, and potentially earning real money from their creations. What’s not to love?

But there’s a gulf between Roblox’s marketing claims and its economic reality that’s rarely discussed.

Today, I want to pull back the curtain on how Roblox’s economy actually works, who really profits from it, and why its “creator empowerment” narrative deserves serious scrutiny.

Roblox has masterfully positioned itself not primarily as a gaming platform but as an educational one. (PR Newswire)They emphasize that their platform “sparks kids’ creativity, coding, and critical thinking abilities” that can grow into “lifelong skills” Idtech. This framing has been remarkably effective in getting parents, schools, and even mainstream media to see Roblox as more than just another video game.

The company’s marketing heavily promotes entrepreneurship and financial opportunity, “a fun, rewarding experience and an opportunity to learn life skills such as creative thinking and entrepreneurship.” (Roblox) They highlight that “for older children and young adults, Roblox provides the opportunity to earn Robux through their creations” by charging other users to play their games (moonshotjr). The Roblox FAQ for parents states, “By building coding and game development skills, kids can earn some serious cash online from home with Roblox.” Success stories of young developers who’ve supposedly earned enough to “purchase houses, cars, open their own gaming studios and pay their way through college” are frequently mentioned in their promotional materials (MIT).

Educational institutions have eagerly embraced this narrative. Roblox Education, for instance, is “dedicated to helping educators harness the power of Roblox to create immersive learning experiences that inspire creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking” (Youngentrepreneurinstitute). Roblox itself claims to offer “free STEAM based lesson plans and resources for educators” to help educational programs “get up and running faster, with higher student success rates” (MIT).

This positioning has been remarkably successful. When Roblox made its debut in China, “the world’s biggest video game market, the platform was promoted primarily for its educational benefits” (Fast Company). In the U.S., parents and teachers who might otherwise restrict “screen time” often make exceptions for Roblox because they’ve bought into the idea that it’s educational and potentially profitable for their children.

But how well does this narrative hold up to scrutiny?

Beneath Roblox’s shiny educational veneer lies a sophisticated economic system designed to extract maximum value while sharing minimal returns with the vast majority of creators. This system employs multiple layers of obfuscation and economic barriers that most young creators (and their parents) don’t fully understand.

At the heart of Roblox’s economy is Robux, its virtual currency. Like casino chips, Robux creates psychological distance between real money and virtual spending, making transactions feel less consequential. But unlike casino chips, Robux employs wildly different exchange rates depending on whether you’re buying or selling.

When players purchase Robux, they pay approximately $0.0125 per Robux (80 Robux for $1) at standard rates (G2A News). But when developers want to cash out through the Developer Exchange (DevEx) program, they receive only $0.0035 per Robux according to the current exchange rate (Roblox Support).

This disparity means there’s a 72% loss in value when converting from purchasing to cashing out. If a player spends $100 on Robux to purchase something from a creator, that creator can only exchange those earnings for about $28 in real money — and that’s before considering all the other fees and requirements.

Beyond the exchange rate disparity, Roblox takes a substantial cut from every transaction on its platform. Since 2012, the marketplace fee for most transactions has been around 30% (Roblox Wiki). This means that of the Robux a creator earns from a sale, 30% is immediately taken by Roblox.

When combined with the exchange rate disparity, the effective revenue share becomes even more skewed. If a player spends $100 worth of Robux on a creator’s item, after the 30% marketplace fee and the DevEx conversion rate, the creator ends up with less than $20 in real money… an effective commission rate of over 80%.

Unlike platforms that allow free content creation, Roblox charges creators just to publish their work. When uploading accessories, clothing, bodies, and heads, creators must pay a fee of 750 Robux per submission (Roblox) — that’s about $9.40 in real money at purchase rates.

These fees are non-refundable if the item is rejected through moderation, creating another risk for creators. Additionally, some items require a “publishing advance” fee (Roblox), further increasing the upfront investment needed before earning a single Robux.

The Developer Exchange program, which allows creators to convert Robux to real money, is surrounded by restrictive requirements that keep many creators from ever cashing out:

1. You must be at least 13 years old (Roblox Support) (ironic for a platform marketed heavily to children).
2. You must have earned at least 30,000 Robux (Roblox Support) (equivalent to about $375 in player purchases after marketplace fees).
3. You must have a verified email address and be in “good standing” within the community (Roblox Support).
4. Only Robux earned from creating and selling content qualifies (Roblox Wiki). Robux obtained from trading or selling items created by others doesn’t count.

These restrictions ensure that many young creators never reach the threshold to convert their earnings to real money, keeping value trapped in Roblox’s ecosystem.

Many popular Roblox experiences compound these issues by implementing their own in-game currencies. Players might spend Robux to purchase a game’s custom currency, adding yet another layer of conversion between real money and in-game value. This creates further psychological distance and makes it even more difficult to track the true cost of transactions.

With all these economic mechanisms in place, it’s worth asking: who’s actually making money on Roblox?

The statistics tell a stark story. As of December 2023, only nine developers or creators on Roblox were rewarded over 10 million U.S. dollars, while approximately five million Roblox developers or creators were not rewarded at all (Statista).

In other words, the top 0.00018% of creators earned over $10 million each, while the vast majority earned nothing. Even among those who did earn something, only about 16,500 developers were registered in the Developer Exchange Program out of over five million developers and creators who earned Robux (Statista). That means only about 0.33% of those who earned any Robux were able to convert it to real currency.

While Roblox boasts about payouts to developers, the numbers reveal a dramatic imbalance. In 2023, developers and creators in the Developer Exchange Program earned $740 million (Statista). This sounds impressive until you compare it to Roblox’s own revenue.

As of March 2024, app store fees accounted for 23% of each dollar spent on Roblox, with developers receiving approximately 29 cents per dollar spent (Statista). This means that Roblox and app stores together take about 71% of all spending on the platform.

In 2022, Roblox generated $2.9 billion from in-game Robux purchases, while developers earned $620 million in the same year (Playtoday). That means Roblox kept approximately 79% of the revenue, with only 21% making its way to creators.

It’s also worth noting who the successful developers typically are. Despite Roblox’s marketing emphasis on child creators, the most profitable games are increasingly developed by professional studios rather than individual kids.

These studios often employ teams of adult developers, artists, and marketers, hardly the young creators portrayed in Roblox’s promotional materials. The economics of the platform have matured to favor professional operations, leaving child creators further behind.

The gap between Roblox’s marketing promises and economic reality isn’t just a financial issue; it has psychological implications for young users.

The cultivation of spending habits

Roblox’s economic design encourages spending while making earning difficult. Children learn that purchasing virtual items is easy and instantaneous, while the path to earning real money is filled with obstacles. This imbalance normalizes consumption over creation, despite the platform’s creative marketing.

The exploitation of social pressure

Many Roblox games leverage social dynamics to drive spending. Limited-time items, exclusive accessories, and status symbols within games create social pressure to spend. Children, who are particularly susceptible to peer influence, often feel compelled to buy Robux to keep up with friends or fit in with the community. I’ve written about these dark patterns before extensively.

The devaluation of creative work

Perhaps most troubling is how Roblox’s economic structure devalues creative labor. When children spend countless hours creating games that generate substantial engagement but minimal returns, they’re learning that creative work isn’t fairly compensated. This stands in stark contrast to the entrepreneurial values the platform claims to promote.

Roblox isn’t inherently bad — it offers genuine creative opportunities and has inspired many children to learn coding and design. The issue lies in the disparity between its marketing claims and economic reality.

An ethical platform focused on empowering young creators might include:

1. Transparent Economics: Clear, easy-to-understand information about exchange rates, fees, and realistic earning expectations. As Tristan Harris of the Center for Humane Technology argues, ethical design requires systems that align with users’ best interests rather than exploiting psychological vulnerabilities for profit. Harris has spent years advocating for technology that respects human attention and agency Humanetech, principles that should extend to economic models targeting children.
2. Fair Revenue Sharing: A higher percentage of revenue going to creators, particularly young ones who may not have alternative income sources. Shoshana Zuboff’s work on surveillance capitalism provides important context here, as she describes how tech platforms often engage in “unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material” Harvard Gazette that primarily benefits the platform rather than users. Child creators deserve better protection from such extraction.
3. Reduced Barriers to Entry: Lower or no fees for initial content creation, with costs recouped from successful content instead. Professor Sonia Livingstone’s research on children’s digital rights suggests platforms should be designed with children’s developmental needs and rights at the center. As she notes, “almost every aspect of children’s lives has an online dimension” Media@LSE, meaning that barriers to participation can have real consequences for young people’s development and agency.
4. Accessible Cash-Out Options: Lower thresholds for converting virtual currency to real money, making earnings accessible to more creators. Dr. Katie Davis, who directs the Digital Youth Lab at the University of Washington, has researched what she calls “design abuse” in technology platforms aimed at children Tilt Parenting, highlighting how economic systems can be designed to better support youth development rather than exploit it.
5. Age-Appropriate Economic Education: Tools and resources that help young users understand the platform’s economy without exploitation. This aligns with what Livingstone and Davis both advocate for: digital environments that empower children with knowledge rather than obscuring how systems work to manipulate them.

Parents and educators need to approach Roblox with clearer eyes. The platform can indeed be educational and creative, but its economic promises deserve skepticism. Rather than accepting marketing claims at face value, adults should help children understand the platform’s true economics and set realistic expectations.

For Roblox itself, there’s an opportunity to align its economic reality with its marketing claims. A more equitable revenue share, lower barriers to monetization, and more transparent economics would go a long way toward making the platform’s “creator empowerment” narrative more than just a slogan.

As for me, the next time a child tells me about their dreams of Roblox riches, I’ll still smile encouragingly. But I’ll also gently help them understand the platform’s real economics and perhaps suggest additional pathways to turn their budding game design skills into future opportunities. After all, the creative spark Roblox ignites in children is real and valuable, even if the platform’s economic promises often aren’t.

Roblox has built a multi-billion-dollar business largely on the creative labor of children, while marketing itself as an educational platform that empowers young creators. The reality is a sophisticated economic system designed to extract maximum value while returning minimal profits to most creators.

If Roblox wants to claim it’s empowering the next generation of entrepreneurs, its economic model should actually do that. Until then, we should approach their educational and financial claims with the skepticism they deserve.

Sam Liberty is a gamification expert, applied game designer, and consultant. His clients include The World Bank, Click Therapeutics, and DARPA. He teaches game design at Northeastern University. He is the former Lead Game Designer at Sidekick Health.