Roblox is the biggest game in the world, but is unprofitable

2024-08-191:45466561www.matthewball.co

With 380MM MAUs, Roblox probably counts more players than the entire AAA gaming ecosystem, is more played than Disney+ is watched, and is starting to rival smaller social networks in scale. But Roblox…

Everyone knows Roblox is huge. But as COVID receded into memory, Roblox shifted from “new” to “familiar,” and gaming experienced its largest contraction in nearly a quarter century, the platform continued to grow. And grow. And grow. As a result, there is now a significant disparity between the perceived size of Roblox and its actual, unprecedented scale.

During the average day, more than 80MM people log onto Roblox. As a historical point of contrast, this means that more people log onto Roblox every 10 or so minutes than used Second Life in a month at its peak. On a monthly basis, Roblox now counts more than 380MM users according to RTrack – 2x as many as PC gaming leader Steam, 3x that of Sony’s PlayStations, 3x the number of unique annual users of the Nintendo Switch in a year, and 5x as many as have bought an Xbox console in the last decade. After accounting for duplication across these platforms, as well as the gap between monthly and annual Switch users, it’s likely Roblox has more monthly users than the entire AAA gaming ecosystem combined. What’s more, NPD/Circana reports that Roblox is typically one of the 3–7 most played games on PlayStation and Xbox (Roblox is not available on Switch or Steam), and SensorTower says that in 2023, Roblox averaged more iOS/Android monthly active users than any other game (including Candy Crush!).

Compared to its most similar competitors—the social virtual world platforms, Minecraft and Fortnite — Roblox has about 5x and 2.25x as many monthly players. For non-gamers, Roblox has about two thirds as many monthly users as Spotify and half as many as Snap (though it probably has a lower share of daily-to-monthly active users) and is roughly as popular as Instagram circa Q4 2015, and Facebook in Q3 2009.

Each month, players spend close to six billion hours using Roblox. This time excludes the viewing of Roblox content on Twitch or YouTube, the largest video platform on earth and which counts non-live gaming content as its second most popular genre, with Roblox one of its five most watched games. Most estimates suggest the average Disney+ account watches no more than 20 hours per month, which would mean about 3.1 billion hours in total monthly watch time—barely half of Roblox’s total.

Not only is Roblox enormously popular, but its growth has been shockingly linear (there is some quarter-to-quarter seasonality, which is common to all media products and particularly significant for Roblox given its over-indexing to children and thus the school calendar). Even at its present scale, it’s difficult to argue that growth won’t continue and that the platform should pass a half billion MAUs and 100 million DAUs. This growth is also resilient. And in contrast to other supposed pandemic darlings such as Zoom, Shopify, and Peloton, Roblox never contracted after the pandemic. Instead, it maintained its overall “pull forward” as well as its accelerated rate of growth.

The composition of Roblox’s growth has also been healthy. The share of Roblox’s total monthly users who use the platform on the average day has grown from 16%–19% pre-pandemic to 22% today. The hours played per DAU and per MAU has also grown, showing that new users are not less engaged users. The share of players over 13 has grown from 40% to 58% (in total there are now 2.5x as many users over 13 as there were users of any age pre-pandemic). Though U.S. and Canadian players are up 250% since the pandemic, their share of the total user base has fallen from 35% to 22% because APAC and ROW users surged 650% and 750%, respectively, taking their share from ~16% and ~21% to 24% and 27%. The global share of players also maps nearly exactly to the global share of playtime, demonstrating that Roblox, like all major social platforms, is a global phenomenon.

Although Roblox has diversified its playerbase away from high-income markets and toward more developing ones, revenues per MAU and DAU are up compared to pre-pandemic levels (spending has come down a bit since the peak of the pandemic, though spending was inflated due to a surge in new users that spent heavily to fill their otherwise empty virtual closets). More impressively, spend per hour is also up since before the pandemic—even though users currently play more per month than at any point during Roblox’s existence, with the sole exception of the peak of the pandemic. In other words, Roblox continues to scale its appeal, usage, and monetization.

Annual spending on Roblox is over $3.8 billion and will pass $4 billion by the end of the year, a quarter of which goes to developers. Given these figures, it is no surprise that Roblox users are hyper-productive. In 2022, Roblox’s users designed 170,000 virtual clothing/accessory items and 15,000 virtual worlds each day (current figures are not known, though average daily users have grown 40% and the ease of creation has improved, as has the quality of the output). Over a hundred user-created worlds have been played over a billion times (and one has over 50 billion plays).

So yes, Roblox is unquestionably “working.” Yet Roblox is also unprofitable. Very unprofitable. What’s more, Roblox’s losses continue to swell because its impressive rate of revenue growth has been outpaced by that of its costs. Over the last four quarters, Roblox’s income from operations was ($1.2B) on revenues of $3.2B, representing a -38% profit margin. During the company’s four pre-pandemic quarters, income was ($66MM) on $508MM, for a -13% profit margin. Put another way, revenues are now 6.2x greater, but losses are 18x greater. This is not the typical path of a company, least of all a tech company that is a platform and at Roblox’s scale. So what gives and what’s the significance of the answer?

Growth, But Not Profits

Obviously, Roblox has a costs problem. Over the last twelve months it has averaged $138 in costs for every $100 in revenue.

Unfortunately, many of these costs are outside of Roblox’s control. To start, an average of 23% of revenues are consumed by various App Store/platform fees (this sum is less than 30% because roughly 20% of sales are direct via browser or PC, where Roblox pays credit card processing fees but not 30% store commissions). Another 26% of revenues are paid out to Roblox’s UGC developers. Though the company could theoretically reduce these payments, doing so would harm both brand and developer investment, both of which drive topline. If anything, Roblox wants to grow revenue share, as it would enable developers to invest even more into the platform (many developers are also understandably annoyed they only get a quarter of the revenue they generate, too). In total, Roblox loses 49% of revenue before it even gets to its own costs (let alone the potential of profits).

Infrastructure and Trust & Safety devours another 28% of revenues on average, down from a peak of 37% but only a point below its six-year average. Unlike App Store fee and developer revenue shares, these costs are not strictly marginal ones. There is a fixed cost per hour for Roblox to operate, and it’s not particularly low, but it does not increase if users increase their spending. As such, this category can see declines on a percentage revenue basis. However, this will not be easy. For example, the clearest way to increase spending is usually to increase playtime, which results in incremental services costs (Roblox has three times the users of PlayStation, but Roblox has only 50% more playtime because its players play half as much per month).

In order to attract more players—especially older players with money to spend and the discretion to spend it—more playtime per player, and more spend per player and play hour, Roblox is also investing in experiences that, on average, are more expensive to operate, as is the case with Generative AI. Roblox is increasingly focused on using GenAI to provide real-time player communications (e.g., transcription and translation), as well as power asset and world creation, and operate AI agents and NPCs – none of which is cheap to create or operate. The company is also investing deeply in more AI tools and human moderators in order to combat harassment, predation, and more. In August 2024, Turkey banned Roblox outright for the “protection of our children”; a month earlier, Bloomberg published a brutal report on the platform’s “pedophile problem.”

So after just three of Roblox’s six cost categories, 77% of revenues are eaten. Combined, the next three are about as costly today—though they have comparatively greater room for improvements and are more under Roblox’s control. Both General & Administrative (13%) and Sales & Marketing (5%) costs are down a few points compared to a few years ago and should continue to decline. Yet even if Roblox cuts these categories down by a third each, that’s only six points of the thirty-eight needed just to break even.

The biggest and most interesting category is R&D. As a platform, R&D is not just the foundation of Roblox’s present-day scale, it’s essential to all future growth - and to that end, the company reinvests much of its current revenues in order to grow future ones (and the company’s history of doing so is precisely why they are so large today). Specifically, improvements in Roblox’s tools and capabilities help attract developers and enable them to produce “better” and “more” experiences, which helps attract more users, retain users as they age up, and encourage more user spend—all of which increases Roblox’s revenue, which in turn funds more R&D and provides more money to developers, who can then invest more in their experiences. As already mentioned, much of Roblox’s R&D investments are in Generative AI. Roblox Founder and CEO David Baszucki has said he believes generative AI will enable users to type or speak entire worlds into existence by 2028, and earlier this year, the company began to demo these tools, too, inclusive of detailed object components and attributes (e.g., when a car is created, it is made up of many parts, rather than just being a “car,” and the car not only moves but has the properties of reflection, the ability to inflict and sustain damage, etc.). Roblox has also said they are working to integrate LLMs into their NPCs and to power real-time translation. By dropping the cost, time, and difficulty involved in creating Roblox experiences while also bolstering their levels of immersion and facilitating more/easier social play, Roblox should be able to increase the platform’s popularity, usage, and revenue.

At the same time, Roblox’s R&D investments are enormous. R&D now takes up 44% of revenues on average, equivalent to $1.5B on a run-rate basis. In comparison, Sony’s PlayStation anticipates spending $2.2B in 2024, with these investments spanning R&D at its twenty-one largely independent studios, virtual reality devices, accessories (including the cloud-based PlayStation Portal), the PlayStation 6 (and, it is rumored, handheld), its network technologies, and so on. In 2024, Unity Technologies will spend “only” $1.1B on R&D, and even the most fantastical (and doubtless egregious) forecasts for Grand Theft Auto VI, anticipated to drop in October 2025, suggest it will cost a billion to develop in total after close to a decade. It is difficult to imagine R&D will continue to grow with sales—let alone in excess of sales, as has been the case over the last few years. For most large technology companies, R&D stabilizes at 6%–12%. Yet even if R&D dropped to 10% (about as much as Spotify and Uber spend), Roblox would still be unprofitable.

Profit Light but Cash Heavy?

Though Roblox isn’t profitable, there are some significant caveats to the situation. Over the last twelve months, operating cash flow—a far more important measure than accounting-defined profits—were $650MM, about 20% of revenue. Roblox has been cash-positive for at least twenty-four quarters. Hard to say that’s not a business that’s “working!”

Part of the cause for this discrepancy is Roblox’s approach to revenue recognition. When a user buys $30 in Robux, the platform’s virtual currency, Roblox recognizes $30 in bookings. An average of $3 of that $30 is spent on a “consumable” (i.e., a single-user or otherwise perishable good), and so Roblox recognizes that $3 as revenue right away. The remaining $27 is spent on “durable” goods such as an avatar. As an avatar can and often will be used over time, Roblox recognizes this revenue over the average lifetime of a Roblox user. This lifetime is currently 27 months, and so the remaining $27 is allocated as $1 for each of the next $27 months, which means that Month One has a total of $4 recognized ($3+$1) and $26 deferred.

Roblox’s accounting practices are generally viewed as conservative. To point, Roblox notes that on average, a user uses all of their newly purchased Robux within only three days. Users do not, as Roblox’s revenue recognition policies seem to suggest, take more than two years to spend their Robux account balance on a miscellany of avatars, outfits, and other items. Roblox also does not allow refunds of Robux or virtual goods, and so the company does not hold a liability to the user (the spend is due to the App Store and developers). Most evidence suggests that the usage of virtual goods, like most cosmetics, is front-loaded. As such, a straightline allocation is probably a misfit versus, say, a double or triple declining balance. Furthermore, Roblox is effectively P&L penalized when it increases the lifetime of a customer—which should be a good thing!—because it extends the revenue recognition period. If Roblox users go from an average of 27 months to 30, for example, then the Month One “loss” above increases from $4.50 to $4.60. Indeed, this has happened since the company went public. In Q1 2021, Roblox users averaged 23 months on the platform, and now they last 27.

Roblox’s accounting methodology does mean that some costs (i.e., App Store fees and developer payments) are also deferred, which partly offsets the consequence of delayed revenue recognition. But all operating costs (i.e., Infrastructure, Trust & Safety) and personnel costs (R&D, S&M, G&A) are incurred right away, and so the net effect of Roblox’s revenue recognition policy is that it shrinks accounting profits as long as total user spend is growing (and the degree of this compression increases as the rate of user spending increases). On average, Roblox’s bookings per quarter (i.e., the money users are spending on Roblox that quarter) exceed the revenues recognized by Roblox by about 23%. This isn’t enough to overcome Roblox’s 138% in costs per dollar, but as a percentage of bookings, costs shrink down to 114%.

So how does Roblox generate so much cash? Over the last twelve months, Roblox’s total compensation to its employees was $1.8B. However, 53% of this compensation was in the form of stock, a non-cash expense. As such, Roblox is able to “shield” its operating cash flow by a sum equivalent to about 31% of revenues (between 2-4x that of most tech companies).

It would be misleading to ignore the cost of stock-based compensation – especially since companies tend to shift total compensation toward cash and away from stock as they mature, which would decrease profits at the very time a company is supposed to be steadily earning them. If stock-based compensation is normalized to around 10%, then another 21% of revenue would be consumed by cash expenses. This would increase Roblox’s costs from 114% of bookings to 135%—just short of the 138% provided by Roblox’s GAAP methodology.

How Does Roblox Get Profitable?

A detailed picture of Roblox’s P&L paints both a better picture (Roblox is generating lots of operating cash flow, R&D should eventually fall by a quarter of revenue or more) and a worse one (30% of costs are paid in stock, at least half of revenue must be paid out). So how does Roblox become a “great” business?

First, one additional profit caveat is necessary. For users in the United States and Canada, Roblox’s Average Billings per Daily Active User (“ABPDAU,” a Roblox measure) is $37 per quarter, more than four times as high as European ABPDAU, over six times as high as the Asia-Pacific market, and nearly nine times that of all other markets (Rest of Word). This gap is so large that UCAN net ABPDAU (i.e. after 23% App Store fees and 26% developer revenue share) is still a multiple of gross ABPDAU elsewhere.

On a globally blended basis, ABPDAU is $13, and we know that Roblox loses roughly 35% on that spend, meaning costs are about $18. In UCAN, Roblox more than doubles that cost basis.

The more than 50% net income margins on UCAN users is important because not only is Roblox “working” for developers and consumers, it is working as a business . . . for at least 25% of players. Sure, that’s a bit cheap: “Roblox does make money, just not all the time and not enough for the times they don’t!” But Roblox is also unique as a social platform.

Because of Roblox’s high cost to serve per hour, users in lower-income or lower-propensity-to-spend markets typically reduce profitability, rather than just harm overall margins. For Facebook, Twitter, Snap, etc., low monetizing users are still accretive because however little revenue they generate, the marginal costs incurred are near zero. This issue is exacerbated on the revenue side, too. Unlike other social platforms, Roblox’s revenue is nearly all via user spending rather than advertising. As such, Roblox pays 25% of its revenue to Apple and Google (30% of transactions on those platforms) whereas Facebook, Snap, et al pay effectively 0. Note that Facebook, which has structurally lower costs to service users than Roblox and is far more mature, has an operating margin of roughly 40% — if the company had to pay out 25-30% first, it would never have “tech company” profit margins, let alone profit dollars.

So to achieve overall profitability, Roblox needs to either increase its average bookings per DAU from $13 to at least $18 or achieve a level of revenue scale such that all fees other than developer payouts (currently $3.38 per $13) are effectively halved. In practice, both pushes will likely be needed; fortunately, there are a few mechanisms for each.

First is App Store fees. In various markets around the world, Apple’s iOS platform and Google’s Android are being forced to open up their app distribution and monetization models, at least in part. The specifics vary by market, by platform, and sometimes type of transaction. There’s not yet reliable data to suggest the degree to which Roblox might save on commissions (at a minimum, they will substitute a 30% fee with a 4% credit card processing expense, but additional iOS/Android fees might also apply), and the more complicated purchasing flow may require discounts and/or lead to fewer transactions, which would harm revenue. Accordingly, the net opportunity may be a reduction from 25% to 20% in the medium term, with a longer-term possibility of something closer to 10%.

Another option is to increase ABPDAU so that profitable users are more directly profitable and unprofitable users are less directly unprofitable. This would mean more revenue, which reduces the mostly-fixed costs of R&D, G&A, and S&M. In the average month, fewer than 6% of users and 17% of average DAUs purchase Robux. There are many natural reasons to skip buying Robux in a given month—some MAUs are just trying Roblox for the first time, others don’t use the platform enough to routine spenders, a large portion of users are likely too young and thus purchasing depends on parental permissions, there are financial discounts for bulk purchasing (which naturally results in a delay to the next purchase), and so on. But there is clearly upside here. As a point of example, PlayStation, which has 120MM MAUs to Roblox’s 375MM and 50MM DAUs to Roblox’s 80MM, generated over $31 billion in revenue over the last twelve months compared to Roblox’s $3.8 billion in bookings.

These increases can come from further aging up Roblox’s userbase (older users can typically spend more—mainly because they’re no longer reliant on their parents for money), higher-end experiences (PlayStation is evidence of the premium users will pay for “premium” games), growing cultural cachet (which should enable higher prices for Roblox’s virtual goods), as well as more playtime per user (PlayStation has about twice the hours per user per month).

Advertising solves a few goals for Roblox. First, it turns all users into revenue-generating users (no matter how miniscule) while also increasing the revenue for high-spending customers (which helps cover all other costs and/or subsidize the money-losing users). Second, it means that marginal consumption will continuously result in marginal revenues rather than just marginal cost (primarily via Infrastructure and Trust & Safety expenses). Third, neither the Apple App Store nor Google’s Google Play collect a portion of ad revenues. Accordingly, all advertising would necessarily decrease app store fees as a percentage of revenue. For instance, if Roblox currently earns $10 per month from each paying user, they pay $2.40 to app stores, which is 24% of their revenue. However, if they generate an additional $3 from advertising on top of that $10, the $2.40 payment to stores would now represent just 18% of their total revenue. Moreover, as already stated, that additional revenue from non-paying users would go directly to Roblox (i.e. 0% would go to app stores). There are marginal IT&S costs to support advertising on a per-hour basis, as well as R&D to continuously improve Roblox’s ad platform, plus incremental G&A for ad sales, ad ops, and ad service, etc. However, IT&S should be relatively modest (and far cheaper than the other way to increase ABPDAU—more playtime), and the latter cost categories should be mostly fixed costs and thus offer greater operating leverage.

Advertisers have been investing in Roblox for years through the production of their own branded worlds. As with all of Roblox’s worlds, Roblox doesn’t charge for their creation (though certainly, some brands do pay agencies to construct them). Instead, Roblox is “compensated” through the engagement and purchases that world might inspire (to this end, Roblox might even be paying the advertiser through its developer royalty payments). At the same time, Roblox did have ways to generate advertising revenue from these world-builders, as well as from those whose primary business was the creation and operation of Roblox worlds. Specifically, Roblox would sell banner ads inside its launcher/application (think the Netflix homescreen), as well as sponsored search results. However, these ads were limited to the promotion of virtual worlds or items (e.g., Starbucks could promote Starbucks World or virtual Starbucks aprons, but not real-world Starbucks drinks or coupons, etc.). These restrictions, though “good” for users, had pretty severe constraints on advertising revenue as it meant that advertiser’s who lacked Roblox worlds or integrations couldn’t buy any ads (lots of Facebook ad spend is for local businesses, but your local hair stylist can’t build a Roblox world, nor can a local doctor’s office, etc., and even if they could, they probably shouldn’t). And those companies or organizations that did have a world or various items had the business cases from platform advertising effectively limited constrained to the efficacy of those worlds or various items (yes, in theory Starbucks advertising a sellable apron also aided Starbuck’s overall brand awareness, but that’s a pretty inefficient way to advertise online).

Since late 2022, Roblox has begun to prioritize new ad units and technologies to support its burgeoning ad business. In 2024, for example, Roblox launched in-world billboards that, unlike other ad units, could advertise whatever (e.g. an upcoming music, real world sneakers, etc.), and could be programmatically bid upon by advertisers and served across any worlds that chose to support billboard ads. This sort of advertising has existed “unofficially” for years (a developer would just build a billboard and either sell the ad slot directly or, more commonly, hook into an outside ad network to have the unit filled). In 2023, however, Roblox began to block developers from pinging a third-party server for ad units. Developers are still permitted to sell custom ads inside their world, but programmatic insertion, dynamic pricing, and/or targeting all require the use of Roblox’s ad network.

Another new unit are “Immersive Ads,” which are portals that enable a user to travel directly from one Roblox experience into another. In this case, Pepsi or Nike might (programmatically) purchase a “portal” inside hit sports-themed worlds (e.g. a Golden State Warriors world, a FIFA world, etc.) that make it easier to directly acquire these world’s users compared to just throwing up a digital billboard. This format, too, was originally “hacked” by independent Roblox developers whom would cut their own deals with other world developers, but Roblox has since built it natively into their platforms and requires developers to use their system. Developers can still try to bypass Roblox through custom deals, but only Roblox's platform provides advanced analytics, such as tracking how many users entered the portal, how long they stayed in the destination, and what activities they engaged in, and advertisers can only programmatically purchase immersive ads through Roblox.

The last new ad unit lets advertisers sponsor items that users can claim for free. For example, Nike might do a deal through Roblox whereby any users who visit Developer World A on a given weekend would receive a free virtual pair of Air Jordan Sneakers. Again, this could be achieved through a direct deal between Nike and Developer A, but Roblox’s own platform offers programmatic placement, better analytics, a greater number of partnering worlds, related tools, etc.

It’s not clear how big Roblox’s advertising business might become. In November 2023, Baszucki told Ben Thomspon “Yeah, I don’t think we’ve ever said advertising is going to be the meat of our business” – but he also argued “the size of the potential immersive advertising experience is uncharted right now. It’s immersive, there’s so much time spent there, the memories are really profound when I go with a friend to do that. So I do think it’s uncharted and very big.” Baszucki also mentioned “someday on Roblox, when we go to Nike World, we will not just be trying on virtual Nike shoes. We may be buying the physical versions as well from that place because it’s been such a connection for us with that brand.” Regardless of any physical tie-ins, it’s obvious that with over 350 million young, and otherwise hard-to-reach players, Roblox has the potential to generate meaningful revenue even if most of its business is based on user subscription.

Master Builder(man)

Smaller App Store payments, more ARPU, and a bigger ad platform are the linear opportunities for Roblox.

Roblox Founder/CEO Baszucki's 5-year predictions from 2018 (as scored in 2023)

At 380MM monthly users and nearly 6B hours of monthly usage, Roblox is already one of the biggest media properties globally – not just the most played video game. Very few products ever get to Roblox’s size, let alone continue growing. And at this present size, altogether “new” opportunities start to emerge.

Roblox Founder/CEO Baszucki's 5-year predictions from 2023

In 2023, for example, Roblox launched new features that enabled “basic” communications capabilities between connected players that were not actively using a Roblox word, including messaging and voice calling, as well as avatar-to-avatar "video calling” that uses a phone or tablet’s front-facing camera to power real-time motion capture. This functionality puts Roblox in more direct competition with social networks and platforms such as Snap and WhatsApp, which boast 800MM and 2.8B users each, but underindex to younger Gen Zs and especially Gen Alphas. Moreover, such functionality is not just “bigger” than immersive socializing, it’s also cheaper to operate and easier to advertise through. Roblox Founder/CEO David Baszucki seems to believe instant messaging is just one of many 2D use cases that the company will soon be able to conquer. At the Roblox Developer Conference in 2023, he teased a forthcoming dating product for verified users over the age of 17, corporate recruiting integrations, and educational programs, among others.

Matthew Ball (@ballmatthew)


Read the original article

Comments

  • By GNOMES 2024-08-1914:0916 reply

    My kiddo has easily spent 500+ on Roblox across birthday/Xmas gift cards/chores.

    I can't stand that almost all of the games seem to have a pay to win aspect, or are heavily advertising every chance they get.

    As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play. Just drives him to keep playing and wanting more Robux. It's compounded when his favorite Youtubers play...

    Seriously don't understand how Roblox isn't being investigated for predatory practices. I imagine they can hide behind the fact users are making most of the mini games, and they are just providing a platform.

    • By mrmetanoia 2024-08-1914:225 reply

      I've mentioned this in other comments, but I sat in with my nephews on a Roblox session, then stayed after to check things out on my own. There's an astounding number of adults on that platform saying some of the most horrible things.

      The games are like you say, and there's some that are indeed the model of what I expected: games that kids and amateurs made with their tools. Car jump games. Simple platforming. Basic shooters. But then there are games that seem like they're some dark pattern mobile devs side projects lol Games where you do nothing but collect stuff or pets and there's lots of gratification devices happening and suddenly there's just a literal pay wall. Just the worst of f2p gambling addiction built right into player built roblox games over and over and over again.

      But on to the adults, my favorite example was joining a 'shooter' game that was really just a shooting gallery of sorts but it had voice chat enabled and wtf there's some eastern european accent going off on gay people and talking about how the targets should have sombreros so 'we' can shoot "lazy" Mexicans.

      That experience was replicated through a few games and I just wrote Roblox off completely as infested with people trying to help kids find hate based ideologies or get them addicted to gambling. I warned their mother, she didn't listen til she got her credit card stolen.

      • By draebek 2024-08-1917:0919 reply

        I struggle to understand why people are so toxic with chat in video games. I don't go to the supermarket, or even the bar and hear people just casually chatting about "who hates [racial slur]?"

        There's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which says that if you give normal people anonymity and an audience then they become (let's call them) assholes. I feel that, in order to buy this, you must accept that there are a surprisingly large number of assholes, much larger than I want to believe.

        Are the number of racist idiots just much greater amongst Gamers™? (To be clear, I play a lot of video games myself. I prefer to believe I am not a racist.)

        I'd love to say that there are a lot more young people playing video games, and they're just trying to be edgy, but I had a chat with some guy who was talking about getting his appliances repaired by "lazy [racial slur]" people. That's probably not a fourteen year old, right? I've seen that a lot.

        I understand that it probably just takes one or two people per game to make the chat unbearable, but if I'm on a team with six or eight people, and I consistently get at least one of these fucking idiots per match, isn't that still an uncomfortably high percentage of the population?

        • By Verdex 2024-08-1920:32

          My hypothesis of civilization is that even the smallest child with a blade may with sufficient luck grievously wound the mightiest warrior.

          So there is a natural mechanism that tends people towards some level of civility when they're in meat space with each other.

          Incivility towards the other not present is then about fitting in via tribalism. After all, those others could be dangerous so we had better make sure our tribe is all on the right page about mistrusting them.

          Incivility towards the other who is present is then about an attempt at social dominance. "Don't mess with me because there are others like me who will avenge me." Perhaps.

          Online there is only reputational harm and emotional harm. And when anonymous there is only emotional harm.

          When the fear of an unexpected stabbing is truly removed we see the true heart of our fellows. Alas, not the most aesthetically pleasing view.

        • By akudha 2024-08-1920:291 reply

          One doesn't behave bad to someone stronger than them (or wealthier, or in a powerful position etc) because they know there will be consequences. One doesn't pick a fight in a bar or supermarket because they know there will be consequences.

          What consequence is there for saying crappy things online, in a video game, especially playing with kids? At best one would get banned? Then go to some other site/game and repeat the same bad behavior.

          The truly nicest people are those who are nice even when there is no one around to watch them.

          • By mrmetanoia 2024-08-213:18

            This really hurts to think - that so many people are only doing the decent thing because of consequence :(

        • By wkat4242 2024-08-1922:232 reply

          > There's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which says that if you give normal people anonymity and an audience then they become (let's call them) assholes.

          I don't agree. HN is one of the best examples. We're as anonymous as we can be here and still this is one of the most friendly online environments I know. Clearly community culture plays a big role too. And it keeps offering refreshing content, I learn new stuff here daily, unlike in the commercial bubbles.

          Same on Libera chat. Didn't turn into a cesspool. In fact the former freenode suddenly did but the community immediately turned their back on it en masse. It was beautiful to see.

          Also, the early internet.

          • By ThrowawayR2 2024-08-1923:301 reply

            I would guess that you don't have showdead turned on and/or haven't been to any of the rather, uh, energetic culture wars threads that the moderation team used to allow over the past few years. It's not that there aren't commenters inclined to behave badly on HN, it's that either they've learned to restrain themselves as the cost of continuing to participate in HN or have been rendered invisible by user flagging or moderators.

            • By wkat4242 2024-08-200:49

              Yeah but there's always assholes. Anonymity or not.

              What defines a community is how it deals with them and as such as steers the sentiment of the entire community. The "they learned to restrain themselves" is exactly what should happen.

              And I doubt getting banned is much of a deterrent. After all one can sign up without even as much as an email address. I know many people throw away accounts daily. Imagine doing that on Facebook or X. It would really go off the rails.

              Yet the community here is still very pleasant.

          • By astura 2024-08-2112:23

            >[HN] is one of the most friendly online environments I know.

            Um....wow! Are you and I on the same site? There's a lot of ways I'd describe HN, "friendly" isn't one of them.

            Genuine meanness and cruelty is WAY more common here than friendliness and there's an overall tone of reactionism, cynicalism, and negativity for the sake of it. People here are very cocky and confident talking about things they don't know anything about.

        • By K0balt 2024-08-1920:36

          The asshole fraction is surprisingly high. If all kinds are accounted for, anecdotally I would estimate that the number is between 1/4 and 1/3. If you’re on here, there is a good chance that you are an outlier in many respects, and normally that means that we tend to breathe rarified, filtered air…we don’t see it except online.

          It helps to remember that for every college professor level person there is someone out there for whom tying his shoes is a significant cognitive challenge. For every really smart person out there, there is someone who is cognitively incapable of meaningfully participating in society.

          The bell curve is a bitch.

        • By burnished 2024-08-1918:31

          Yes, it seems clear that a component of Gamer Culture is casual bigotry. It has been changing but that mostly means spaces have become more inclusive and new people are more inclusive. The pre-existing people didn't stop existing they just sort of got shoved out of places that started having standards around behavior.

          An aspect of the Greater Internet Fuckwad theory is also the level of exposure behavior gets in an online context - so very many more people are present in a way that invites sharing and comment that just doesn't exist in a grocery store. Think about how unusual it would be for me to reply in depth to an offhand comment like this (that was not directed to me) at a bar. Or how many people you might socialize with in a tf2 or l4d lobby over the course of an hour compared to in a grocery.

          There is also a component of self selection when it comes to the spaces you are comparing against; you probably wouldn't want to go to bars and groceries where that behavior was present well before you actually got to live examples.

          In my experience individual communities can also have very different feels. For example I used to play League of Legends and eventually switched to Dota2 because it felt very consistent that at least one person would behave in an awful fashion in the league lobbies. Whereas when playing Dota that sort of behavior was the exception.

        • By celim307 2024-08-1920:13

          I'd argue its from attention seeking from lonely people online. Being a rage troll is the quickest way to get some kind of interaction, and being online means theres less consequences for it

        • By conductr 2024-08-1918:01

          People revert to their inner twelve year old punk kid self when they are there. Bullying and trying to one up others in terms of most outrageous thing you can say is common and applauded.

        • By mulmen 2024-08-1918:25

          > I feel that, in order to buy this, you must accept that there are a surprisingly large number of assholes, much larger than I want to believe

          Why? The theory is that they become assholes, not that they started that way. The microphone is corrupting.

        • By Muromec 2024-08-1918:251 reply

          Thankfully multiplayers games without chat exits. It’s enough to get tea-bagged by a team winning a 1v3 without actually hearing them talk.

          • By Hearth90pBots 2024-08-203:19

            I always found those games extremely depressing, and... Widely known to be botted to hell and back. Ever since the Hearthstone cheating software became capable of "emulating" human behavior, it became clear that 90% of the userbase was non-human. Why play then? An unbalanced game, by virtue of their grind/paid advantage, and you're not even outsmarting anyone. Single player deckbuilders like Slay the Spire and its spawn are objectively better at that point.

        • By techjamie 2024-08-1918:001 reply

          My boss at my first job was a nice guy, helped me out a lot when I was still a fledgling adult. Added him on Facebook after a few months and it was covered in Confederate flags, Nazi windmills, and talk about certain types of people.

          I knew he did some bad stuff and spent a long time behind bars, but I didn't see that coming.

          Also, if you go to any YouTube video that involves a non-white person committing a crime, the comments are stuffed with thinly veiled, or outright, racist remarks. People are just garbage.

          • By cmrdporcupine 2024-08-203:47

            Something has changed in the last 10 years. I'm sure this was always there, but. I used to see people get ripped and shredded in comments sections for racist etc. commentary. Now it seems like the norm.

            I'd blame Trump & crew, but I suspect his rise is as much a symptom as a cause.

            The other day I got fed a mattress ad in my Facebook feed, and it featured a mixed race couple relaxing together on a bed. The comments were just full of some of the most outright vile content I'd ever seen, and I'm not young. Full-on neo-Nazi stuff. I made the mistake of calling someone on their crap, and got threatened, person went through my profile snapping public pics, etc. etc. it was just insane.

            I just... despair :(

        • By mrmetanoia 2024-08-213:17

          I struggle also. I love that PA comic! I often tell my wife when we get someone who starts throwing in Rocket League, "you wouldn't do this if you walked down to the park for a pickup game of basketball - nobody would ever play with you again. you would look like a moron." and maybe that's it. there's no meaningful consequence? It's sad though to think so many people are only being compelled to do the decent thing to avoid consequences and eschew decent behavior as soon as they enter a consequence free zone? Just breaks my heart really, because I thought we did these things for fun lol

        • By isk517 2024-08-1919:511 reply

          I think that unfortunately there are just a larger number of assholes than we would like to believe, and they particularly manifest when playing video games. Playing video games is something people due for a release, and what they are releasing isn't always pleasant. For every person that openly acts like a asshole out in public there are at least 2 secret assholes who understand the society expects them to be on their best behavior, but once they are anonymous then the vitriol can flow freely.

          With that said I think the percentage of assholes by percentage of population is always going to be higher in video games with voice chat simply because it becomes a outlet for a certain type of person.

          • By slowmovintarget 2024-08-2215:55

            No, that's not what science tells us is going on. There are no in-person cues that tell someone their behavior is unacceptable or must be controlled:

            - Other people watching (no social cost)

            - No facial expressions or body language from others triggering mirror neurons that serve as empathy precursors.

            - No risk (violence, loss of property, loss of status... etc.)

            There are simply too many people that don't consciously monitor their own behavior for right and wrong. Absent those other layers and pressures, we all tend to make unconsciously selfish decisions. That many young people don't think about the morality involved in those behaviors is a failure of upbringing, not nature (IMHO).

        • By dasil003 2024-08-1917:391 reply

          I suspect it's because angry and disenfranchised people are over-represented in terms of hours spent playing online games. There's also a negative feedback loop where more casual and/or sensitive gamers opt out since they don't want to deal with the bullshit.

          • By unshavedyak 2024-08-1917:54

            > There's also a negative feedback loop where more casual and/or sensitive gamers opt out since they don't want to deal with the bullshit.

            I think there's also a loop where extremes are pushed. Ie it's common to celebrate victories in games. This then tilts players. Players lean into that tilt, and teabag. Teabag eventually is mundane, so you spread verbal toxicity. Toxicity then isn't enough, and etcetc.

            It seems a loop without external pressures like in-person-reputation to inhibit how far it goes. A cycle of abuse that's all anonymous, fueled by the general competitive arousal of PvP/etc games.

            Note that i'm mostly speaking to PvP games where that competitive environment also contributes to it. However i imagine "cycle of abuse" has it's place in most of these anonymous environments.

        • By oever 2024-08-1919:27

          In games where you're shooting others, how can you justify that? Either you are bad or they are bad. When you're in a team, it's normal that the team talks about justification.

        • By jachee 2024-08-1917:541 reply

          I think you’ve run across one of the major, unfortunate reasons US elections are so close, from the …less-progressive… side of things.

          • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:26

            Well that's easy to explain. Most voters skew older for historical reasons and older people tend to become more conservative as they age (again, for historical reasons).

            This "gamer rage" is a more recent enabling by technological anonymity, as well as instantaneous, cheap global communication. Actions without consequences, but without needing millions to cover up the petty actions.

        • By gopher_space 2024-08-1917:48

          From my experience any pvp game that doesn’t have in-game admins attracts these people.

        • By 2OEH8eoCRo0 2024-08-1922:02

          Faux-anonymity/lack of consequences.

          The same reason that many on the internet are toxic.

        • By ThrowawayR2 2024-08-1919:38

          > "Are the number of racist idiots just much greater amongst Gamers™?"

          You have clearly never read the comments on newspaper websites back when they still had them. Sturgeon's Law applies to human beings in general.

        • By yoGawd 2024-08-2015:15

          Would it be toxic if your culture didn’t train you to see it as such?

          Would members of an uncontacted tribe clutch their pearls all the same?

          So tired of one cultures anxiety being made the norm everywhere to serve the hallucination 300 million Americans the other 8 billion don’t need should be special.

          Americans have expropriated other nations labor and resources and rely on their slave labor without batting an eye about it. Really sick of holding them up as some shining beacon of freedom and dignity.

          You rely on worse to survive but omgurd wurds hurt so much as someone else’s back and knees after digging up others food, and their lungs after testing vapes, and their hands after sewing together your Nikes.

          The elders are right about my peers; oblivious and entitled. Just parrots of cognitive dissonant TV memes like “Do your own thing. Drink Sprite like the rest of the group we’re showing. Engaging in norms of your society like everyone else is unique!”

          Americans are an insane and dangerous people; temporary meat suits convinced of their permanence and righteousness while carrying on about being above biases and exploitative behavior.

      • By whoknew1122 2024-08-1914:462 reply

        First thing I do when playing a multiplayer game with proximity voice chat is to turn voice chat off. Makes play sessions much more enjoyable.

        Sure you may miss the 5% of chat that is actually tactical and relevant to the game, but it's a very small price to pay in order to avoid edgelords and other toxic people.

        • By jjcm 2024-08-1916:081 reply

          I appreciate Valve for having both an in-game skill score as well as a behavior score. Once your behavior is maxed out chat becomes an entirely different experience.

          Here's a chat log from a game I played yesterday: https://www.dotabuff.com/matches/7902208511/chat

          Some wholesome banter and that's about it.

          • By streamfan 2024-08-1918:142 reply

            I wholeheartedly disagree as someone with 8k+ hours in game.

            In fact most people in dota have maxed out behavior scores.

            You have to try pretty hard to be muted in the game or have behavior or communication scores lowered significantly.

            I can assure anyone that just because you're sitting at 12k doesn't mean your experience is going to be good or an "entirely different experience"

            • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:29

              Is that simply cultural? DOTA is well over a decade old. If everyone's toxic and behavior is self-moderated, then toxic behavior is not just normalized but reinforced.

            • By Hearth90pBots 2024-08-203:23

              And as someone with that many hours too... Go check a 8k behavior score or below. The system is working. It's just that the depths of hell are deeper than people think.

              It could be more aggressive at lowering score tho, true. Used to be. They "buffed" the gain per 20 matches last December, but it was great before (And even lowered the scores of streamers that had it coming).

        • By mywittyname 2024-08-1915:51

          This sucks because, when used appropriately, prox voice chat works really well and adds depth to multiplayer. A lot of games feel really dead without it. But finding pubbies that use it appropriately is practically impossible.

      • By wredue 2024-08-1915:101 reply

        Games in general have been a target of hate base voice chat.

        You get these people everywhere.

      • By stemlord 2024-08-211:17

        To be fair when I was <10 years old my siblings and I had a lot of fun in AOL chatrooms and various forums full of people of all ages saying all kinds of things. Not that it makes it okay but that particular aspect of roblox isn't really something new when it comes to kids exploring the web.

      • By jspaetzel 2024-08-1920:32

        This is nothing new or exclusive to Roblox, I recall this sort of language in every online gaming platform.

    • By latexr 2024-08-1914:183 reply

      > As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play.

      Considering how much you said your kid has spent, that money could’ve been spent on buying copies for all their friends and you’d still have plenty left over.

      • By nazka 2024-08-1915:163 reply

        I upvoted you but after thinking about it actually, you will find that this will attract kids that are friends for the money and start weird dynamics in the social bubble of his son. But your idea is right! Maybe he could have done gaming sessions at his house or who knows what to better spend this money on other games.

        • By lolinder 2024-08-1918:491 reply

          > this will attract kids that are friends for the money and start weird dynamics in the social bubble of his son

          From the amount of money sunk into this one game it sounds like there are already weird money dynamics in his social bubble.

          • By mlyle 2024-08-1919:42

            Yah, but Roblox weird money dynamics is that he's showing up and is overpowered in the games because he's paying to win, but fellow kids likely view him as exceptionally skilled :P

        • By junon 2024-08-1917:41

          Eh yes. And no. Turn it into a gathering event at your house with pizza and bring back LAN parties. That's stuff that kids remember for life.

        • By rangerelf 2024-08-1916:12

          LAN parties were/are a thing.

      • By jayd16 2024-08-1916:35

        That's like one console and a couple games so its not necessarily the most efficient usage.

        Couch co-op is the way to go.... but as the dad be prepared to lose control of your living room.

      • By consteval 2024-08-1916:541 reply

        Many games don't even require separate copies. This is a fairly new phenomenon.

        I mean, I'm fully grown and I still get together with friends and play Mario Party and Smash. I just bought extra controllers and boom, good to go.

        • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:32

          Really depends on the genre nowadays. Fighters (mostly) still support local co-op (Nintendo in General is pretty good at couch co-op). Shooters are becoming less local co-op friendly, not even having split screen.

    • By whoknew1122 2024-08-1914:432 reply

      > As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play. Just drives him to keep playing and wanting more Robux. It's compounded when his favorite Youtubers play...

      If there's a paid game your kid really likes, perhaps you can talk to his friend's parents and buy the friend a copy of the game. ...I say talking to the friend's parents first, because just gifting a game to the friends would be creepy.

      But buying friends copies of a game we want to play together is something my friend group routinely does and we're all adults with disposable income.

      • By neilv 2024-08-1920:20

        Excellent idea. Two additional reasons: (1) many parents would want veto power on what kids spent their time on and are exposed to, including video games; and (2) you could suggest quietly buying the game through the parents, to avoid complicating the kids' relationship with getting stuff.

        Some other, more expensive, activities (e.g., tennis lessons together, when the family of one of the BFFs isn't affluent) are harder for more people to do this, but video games are relatively inexpensive.

      • By wavemode 2024-08-1914:484 reply

        > just gifting a game to the friends would be creepy

        lol well this certainly depends on how it's done. Walking up to them in a trench coat and handing them a disc? Probably creepy. But you could also just, like, send them a gift key on Steam...

        • By amclennon 2024-08-1915:303 reply

          Unless this person is literally Santa Claus, I suspect a lot of parents might question the motives of a grown man sending gifts to their children without their knowledge.

          • By account42 2024-08-1915:46

            Just give your kid extra keys to hand to his friends lol, no need to make this complicated.

          • By mulmen 2024-08-1918:32

            The key is “without their knowledge”. Seems like an easy thing to explain to a parent. Plus it’s reasonable you’d ask the parents so they have a chance to say yes/no to the game.

          • By Muromec 2024-08-1918:28

            Just talk to parents. Maybe you will have lan party with them too.

        • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:34

          Yes much better. Send an unsolicited game on steam to a minor. Maybe one whose parents have more limits on content than you.

        • By whoknew1122 2024-08-1915:40

          Having been a victim of grooming, trust me. It's better to talk to the parents than to give a child a gift without the parents' knowledge.

    • By wmeredith 2024-08-1916:491 reply

      I'm a gamer and I always play the games my kids are playing to see what's up. Roblox was banned in my house after I messed around with it on my own for 30 minutes. Most of the games on the platform are pay to win skinner boxes and they have a pedophile problem. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-roblox-pedophile-pro...

      • By ciropantera 2024-08-1917:474 reply

        As a new father that will eventually get into that situation: how do you ban Roblox in your house? I imagine it’s popular among your kids’ real world acquaintances (school etc). Doesn’t banning it exclude your kids from these groups? Do they feel left out?

        Given the current state of gaming and where it’s heading I would love to ban gaming altogether but I feel social pressure from other kids makes it very hard.

        • By jajko 2024-08-1918:082 reply

          I go against the stream it seems, but even though I grew up gaming, I see it now as mostly wasted time. Any benefit that came with it is easily overshadowed with literally wasting the most precious thing we have - our time in this universe which could be spent having serious adventures (or anything else like finding/working on love and real friends(TM)).

          I've gotten into various sports mostly done in mountains and some additional filler training like weightlifting and running, my quality of life and satisfaction from it skyrocketed. Obviously you get much more healthier, attractive and happier as side effect, but over time your mindset also changes a lot.

          These days, displays in our home are kept to the minimum since content is mostly toxic and made as addictive as possible (as mentioned all over this thread). As time progresses we will gradually ease it off, but games will be last thing on a long list. There is not much skill to learn so they are not missing out, clicking all around can be done by infants.

          It helps that we are surrounded by people where such approach is the norm and mark of good invested parenthood, and letting kids get addicted to various dark patterns online or in gaming is seen as on cca same level as being absent alcoholic parent or similar fail. Not that I don't see it often ie when traveling, kids glued to screen to me looks very sad while their parents often look like epitome of laziness. Physically and mentally weak, socially awkward, stuck in eternal dopamine kick chase, largely defenseless from sophisticated actors milking their parents credit cards.

          • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:43

            Everyone will have different experiences. I turned that gaming passion into a career and am fortunately much better off than my single mother who struggled raising me.

            (and speaking of parents: who the hell is letting a kid use their credit card? I bought an extra $.75 butterfingers one time and it was probably the most mad my mom ever got at me. More than when I dinged the car while learning to drive. I NEVER spent her money again without asking).

            Games help motivate me to read (being into RPGs with little/no voice acting will do that), they arguably enhaced my logic puzzle ability and reaction time, they gave me something to bind over with like minded acquaintances.

            I think it really comes down to a case by case basis.

          • By Shocka1 2024-08-1920:55

            I'm mostly in agreement with ya. I've always been big into the outdoors as it's what truly allows me to recharge. Fishing/hiking/hunting/mountainbiking, etc. All of it is good for the soul. As the kids have gotten older I've been able to get them out in the same activities. In my house 8/10 times we are outside doing outdoorsy stuff, while the other 20% is gaming.

            The type/quality of the games definitely matters IMO. My six year old really enjoys DCS World and Kerbel Space program. Roblox is a total no go in my house, but I rarely deny my kid from wanting to land a jet or build a rocket.

        • By spreiti 2024-08-1920:46

          Explain them the concepts of loot boxes and pay to win. My son, who was 8 at that time, understood quiet fast that these games don't require skill and are just trying to steal money from him. He doesn't like that and now avoids games that contain these dark patterns and has become quiet good at spotting them.

          Also, buy a Nintendo console. It solves 99% of all problems. I haven't seen these dark patterns in any Nintendo title and personally I think it's the best gaming environment for kids.

        • By lolinder 2024-08-1918:56

          > Doesn’t banning it exclude your kids from these groups? Do they feel left out?

          The way I was raised we understood that most kids do things that come back to bite them later and we could choose to be better than that.

          I don't feel guilty for teaching my kids to avoid drugs and alcohol—the friend groups that would actually fully exclude them from aren't worth their time anyway. I feel the same about Roblox. It's a dangerous drug produced by an intentionally exploitative company.

          If refusing to participate causes a particular friend group to become inaccessible, that says something about the amount of time that friend group spends on the drug and therefore says something about the utility of the time my kid would have spent with them anyway.

        • By watwut 2024-08-1921:21

          My kids did not paid a cent nor did most of their friends. There are some paid a little, no more then the relatively normal amount of money. If someone 8 years old is paying a lot of money for Roblox while his friends prefer roblox because it is free, then the issue is provably solvable.

          Beyond limiting infinite amount of paying by not giving the kid infinite amount of money, you can limit their time in the app or on tablet by rules like "max X hours per week".

    • By amerkhalid 2024-08-1916:412 reply

      I am a gamer dad too. This is something I worry about. I have been playing Minecraft with my son but he is learning about these other games.

      I have been using some of similar messaging to smoking and saying things like that playing too many video games will destroy the health. Of course, I am not a good role model when it comes to living healthy lifestyle. And kids probably don't even understand what health really means.

      How does one protect their kids against these predatory practices?

      • By Muromec 2024-08-1918:36

        Saying we don’t play the casino scam works pretty good here.

        Like strict zero money after buying the game. Not on custom skins not on early access characters. We just don’t .

        Just don’t give the money and don’t argue about details.

        Alternatively, that one custom skill gets unlocked after getting a good grade at the end of the year or for birthday/Christmas/whatever.

      • By hyperbolablabla 2024-08-1917:51

        > I am not a good role model

        Maybe fix that?

    • By xyst 2024-08-1917:081 reply

      Wild. You know there’s a problem but you continue to feed into your child’s addiction. This is known as “enabling”.

      • By astura 2024-08-2115:17

        Yeah, this post is legit insane - what child has $500 to spend on ANYTHING, let alone fucking Robux (which presumably requires a credit card)!?

    • By IG_Semmelweiss 2024-08-1915:582 reply

      Buy him DRM free games on GOG.

      I Do this for young relatives.

      Ive been shown WhatsApp threads of the young teens who play the DRM-free games i upload - my google drive ID is effectively referenced as some kind of deity lol

      Side benefit: No online play or interaction with the outside world, only with your own group (usually)

      • By strich 2024-08-1917:302 reply

        As a game developer it's kind of sad to see such practices in stealing my or others hard work.

        But I have to keep telling myself those kids or parents wouldn't have paid for them anyway.

        Maybe consider buying a few copies at least in the future?

        • By techjamie 2024-08-200:20

          It really depends on what games are being pirated. If it's a solo dev or small team, then yeah, definitely pay for the official release if you can. But since these are kids, they'll definitely be pirating games here and there since they don't have money. At least the person above is helping them by giving them, presumably, safe copies.

          Now, if we're talking AAA titles from companies who will post record profits at the same time as record layoffs, while also giving the C suite a bonus bigger than the GDP of a small nation... Then yeah, sail the high seas. Those same companies thoroughly don't believe buying is owning, so I'm fine to call piracy polite borrowing.

        • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:38

          That's always the risk in a game with no protections. It just takes one person uploading it to the internet and it's shark bait.

          At least this example is limited to a neighborhood.

      • By onemoresoop 2024-08-2020:14

        Or buy him a MiYoo/Ambernic and add Pico-8 games. Pico-8 is a great platform, games are free and short and sweet. In addition, you can pry under the hood and read the code, modify it freely, etc. It's a perfect on-ramp for programming.

        I personally got a Miyoo for my kid but ended up getting one for myself. The fun and nostalgia are there.

    • By _coveredInBees 2024-08-1914:181 reply

      Eh, I dunno. My son plays a bunch of Roblox and has spent a net $10 for a few custom avatar mods. While there is certainly a pay to win aspect for some games within, there is also a ton of "free" games to sift through, and since all of them are competing for players, they still have to make the experience compelling enough at the free tier. We've had conversations about the pay-to-win aspect, and even though he has several hundred dollars saved up, he has never once asked to spend money on pay-to-win aspects of Roblox. I'd argue that almost any modern videogame / mobile game is equally if not more "predatory" with the pay-to-win side of things. Just look at the menu screens in any modern first person shooter / battle royale type game. Those look far worse than anything I have seen in Roblox.

      • By micromacrofoot 2024-08-1914:533 reply

        both should be regulated, this type of predatory gambling-like behavior shouldn't be allowed for kids under a certain age

        • By Aerroon 2024-08-1915:512 reply

          So, no social media and no video games for kids? Man am I glad that I grew up before tomorrow when everything is going to be restricted.

          • By micromacrofoot 2024-08-1916:071 reply

            social media generally bans kids under 13 in the US — there's a good amount of evidence regarding the harms it can have at this point

            kids haven't been able to buy mature games from brick-and-mortar stores like Gamestop since I was a child decades ago

            kids used to be able to smoke cigarettes too

            • By Aerroon 2024-08-1917:321 reply

              >there's a good amount of evidence regarding the harms it can have at this point

              Considering this evidence was produced during a time when the public opinion was looking for any excuse to blame social media companies and that the field of research producing those studies has an accuracy of a coin flip I'm unconvinced. I'd need to see a lot more than out of contact quotes from Facebook research or these questionable "we asked kids to taste xyz, they're totally more depressed and it's totally social media's fault."

              >kids haven't been able to buy mature games from brick-and-mortar stores like Gamestop since I was a child decades ago

              They pirated them instead because kids don't have money.

              That being said, I would rather kids be banned from the internet outright rather than the internet becoming yet another watered down place.

              • By micromacrofoot 2024-08-1917:591 reply

                Some of this evidence has been produced by companies with an incentive to not produce it (internal Facebook research has shown negative mental health implications for teenage girls on instagram for example — this is known as part of some whistleblowing efforts)

                > They pirated them instead because kids don't have money.

                I mean sure, a kid can break a window and rob a gun store too... we're not talking about creating rules that are impossible to circumvent, the answer to imperfect regulation isn't no regulation.

                > That being said, I would rather kids be banned from the internet outright rather than the internet becoming yet another watered down place.

                Content filters have come a long way, this isn't what anyone is suggesting.

                • By Aerroon 2024-08-2210:37

                  >internal Facebook research has shown negative mental health implications for teenage girls on instagram for example — this is known as part of some whistleblowing efforts

                  This is one of the reasons why I have difficulty taking this rewatch seriously, because that is not what the internal research at Facebook said. That was a media headline that misrepresented the results.

                  They measured 12 different indicators problematic use of Instagram, body image issues, sadness etc. For teen girls 32% of respondents said that IG made their body image issues worse, what the media didn't say however, is that 45% thought Instagram had no impact and 22% said it made their body image issues better.

                  And that was basically the worst indicator out of all 12 of them. For example, the same research said that on the question of loneliness 12% of teen girls said that IG made it worse, 36% said it had no impact and 51% said that IG made it better.

                  On every issue Instagram eat mainly either neutral or positive. And that's the internal research that places like WSJ used to say Facebook causes negative mental health effects in teen girls.

                  >Content filters have come a long way, this isn't what anyone is suggesting.

                  No they haven't. It's still the same garbage it always was just dressed up in fancier words. You can look at AI and see how well censoring it works. It's crude and ultimately doesn't work, just makes for a worse experience.

          • By consteval 2024-08-1916:581 reply

            > So, no social media

            When I was a kid, everyone was absolutely riddled with self-doubt and insecurity. Jealousy and bullying was the norm. There wasn't a soul in my middle school who didn't deeply, deeply hate themselves.

            This was before social media. Imagine that, but now kids ALSO get to form unrealistic expectations and envy at home on their devices.

            > no video games for kids?

            What are you talking about? You can still get your friends together and play mario party or super smash or kirby or whatever. That never went away, we still have co-op games where it's free to play for the other kids.

            We just shouldn't have gambling for the kids. Probably.

            • By Aerroon 2024-08-1917:271 reply

              >You can still get your friends together and play mario party or super smash or kirby or whatever. That never went away, we still have co-op games where it's free to play for the other kids.

              Yeah, they don't add those free to play mechanics because they force you to buy an extra piece of hardware for $400 to play those games. It works great when you're rich, I guess, but then these f2p games shouldn't matter in the first place.

              • By consteval 2024-08-2013:491 reply

                What? No, you don't need a console. One switch can play a 4 player or 8 player game just fine. How it's been for decades.

                • By Aerroon 2024-08-2210:371 reply

                  Yes, and you need the switch to play that Nintendo game in the first place. Thus forcing you to buy the piece of hardware.

                  • By consteval 2024-08-2614:03

                    ... was there ever a point in time where you were able to play a console game without the console? Was the game magic?

                    You only need one (1) switch. I can play smash with 8 people, on my couch, and 7/8 DO NOT have a switch. You need at least one (1) switch because the game cartridge cannot magically be projected onto my TV.

                    This is how it's always been and, in nintendo land at least, has only gotten better. I mean, I certainly couldn't play 8 player anything on the NES.

        • By _coveredInBees 2024-08-1915:06

          Sure, I don't disagree with that at all. I'd love to see that happen. I was just pointing out that most of the industry is far worse than what I have seen with Roblox personally.

    • By Viliam1234 2024-08-1922:22

      > I can't stand that almost all of the games seem to have a pay to win aspect, or are heavily advertising every chance they get.

      That started at a certain moment in history, when paying online became trivial, so everyone who didn't produce pay-to-win was leaving a lot of money on the table. You need to find games that are older than that.

      Some of the good old games are free, for example Starcraft or Wesnoth. There are many cheap games on Steam, but you need to review them first, or maybe find a review on YouTube. If the game is sufficiently cheap, for example up to $5, you could simply buy 5 copies and tell your kid to give donate 4 of them to his best friends.

    • By afloyd 2024-08-1920:31

      Former Roblox player that quit back in 2016, there used to be a free currency called Tickets which were a free currency you could get through various means, it was a lot more restrictive on what you could get, but it really boosted my enjoyment of the game. The moment they got rid of tix I quit, because I refused to spend any of my meager allowance on Roblox (also generally being bored of the game after years of playing.) Modern Roblox is really impressive, and really depressing. The things people make are incredibly cool, and they are rewarded incredibly poorly for it.

    • By Suppafly 2024-08-1916:07

      >As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play.

      It'd be cheaper to buy games for his friends to play than to support his robux addiction.

    • By ToucanLoucan 2024-08-1914:145 reply

      > Seriously don't understand how Roblox isn't being investigated for predatory practices.

      Because if you held game companies responsible for deliberately fostering addiction in their customers to earn a profit, we'd have scores of industries behind them in line to be brought to heel the same way and the stocks for tech companies, game companies, tobacco companies, casino companies, alcohol companies, etc. etc. would all implode.

      There's no danger of that of course because we long ago decided as a society that we're fine with vulnerable populations being put through an economic woodchipper to fuel our retirement funds, and that's been status quo for so long that I sincerely doubt there's any way to actually change it.

      • By riwsky 2024-08-1914:551 reply

        We did that for tobacco, though? It was a huge public health win?

        • By xhkkffbf 2024-08-1915:122 reply

          Actually, it's mixed. The states now get such a huge chunk of tobacco money that they're incentivized to keep people smoking. The more they smoke, the more the state gets.

          • By danans 2024-08-1916:103 reply

            > The more they smoke, the more the state gets.

            The state "gets" tobacco tax revenue to help pay for the burden of medical treatment for those with smoking related illnesses. Lung cancer isn't free to treat.

            • By ChadNauseam 2024-08-1916:262 reply

              I've read that smoking related illnesses cost less money overall to treat than average. As an extreme example, if someone went around disintegrating people with an orbital laser, this would clearly reduce overall heathcare spending. So in this analogy, smoking is the equivalent of an orbital laser that (plausibly) causes people to die before they develop an even more expensive-to-treat healthcare situation.

              • By danans 2024-08-214:26

                > I've read that smoking related illnesses cost less money overall to treat than average.

                If you've read it, then please provide the citation.

                Smoking not only has its own direct impacts (lung cancer, emphysema), but it also makes many other conditions far worse than they would be without smoking, and therefore more expensive to treat.

              • By itsgabriel 2024-08-206:53

                I don't think this analogy works, the space laser is instant and does not spread to non-targets. Smoking does reduce the average life span, but not to zero. In the remaining time, healthcare costs are increased on top of anything expensive they'd develop naturally. Smoking also causes serious diseases in non-smokers and kills 1.3 million non-smokers per year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

            • By consteval 2024-08-1917:00

              Yes, I'm sure all that money is perfectly tracked and the system is perfectly efficient so there's no money being burned somewhere along the way to line someone's pocket.

            • By xhkkffbf 2024-08-2015:021 reply

              They have to treat them any way because of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.

              So it's all about tax revenue to defer this cost.

              • By danans 2024-08-214:29

                The alternative is to deny medical care to smokers. That would at the very least violate medical ethics, and possibly the law.

          • By ToucanLoucan 2024-08-1915:52

            Also, the companies are doing gangbusters in developing countries where people aren't as informed of the dangers of smoking.

            This is not judgement, to be clear. I enjoy the occasional smokable like anyone else, but I do that with full understanding of the health risks associated with it.

      • By drewcoo 2024-08-1915:18

        > we'd have scores of industries behind them

        Not if they have good lobbyists. In the US we still have beer ads on TV though tobacco commercials have been gone long enough to barely be remembered.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUY0w2cVAUQ

      • By GNOMES 2024-08-1914:172 reply

        Understand your point, but Epic (Fortnite) and games like Fifa have gotten sued or major slap on the wrists for the same practices

        • By latexr 2024-08-1914:232 reply

          > major slap on the wrists

          That doesn’t make sense as a concept. The point of the slap on the wrist is that it’s ineffective/insufficient punishment to change behaviour. You’re essentially saying they got a big small penalty.

          • By GNOMES 2024-08-1914:26

            Paying fines while still racking in cash. Basically the cost of doing business.

          • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:48

            It's a big enough penalty to be noticed and course correct. but not a big enough one to fundamentally hit their bottom line. I think it fits.

        • By ToucanLoucan 2024-08-1914:52

          They're still doing it though. They stopped whatever specific part got them in trouble but in the broad strokes they're still exploiting customers because the law says they can.

          Everything that a business of that size does is legal because if the authorities actually wanted it stopped, it would be stopped.

      • By johnnyanmac 2024-08-1918:47

        You forgot the most important industry: the food industry. But they settled that battle long ago.

        And on some level I agree. We shouldn't hold companies accountable for raising our children. Simply mitigate their ways to target them And exploit their data (something Fortnite got dinged hard for).

      • By throw10920 2024-08-201:26

        > There's no danger of that of course because we long ago decided as a society that we're fine with vulnerable populations being put through an economic woodchipper to fuel our retirement funds

        "We" did? Who's "we"? I certainly never agreed to this. Citation needed.

    • By mercenario 2024-08-2016:30

      > Seriously don't understand how Roblox isn't being investigated for predatory practices

      Who gave to your kid the money to spend on Roblox?

    • By thomastjeffery 2024-08-1916:131 reply

      Moderation is dead, and copyright is the knife.

      • By 2cynykyl 2024-08-1920:411 reply

        I think I will love this quote if I knew what it meant. Care to elaborate?

        • By thomastjeffery 2024-08-1921:42

          I should have elaborated more originally.. I suppose part of me wanted to be asked.

          Moderation used to work well, because relatively small communities (forums and game servers) included moderators, who were users that also actively participated in discussion. That model is incredibly rare today. Instead, we have a tiny coalition of corporate giants who own (monopolize via copyright) the overwhelming majority of discussion content and interaction platforms. On these platforms, traditional moderation has been replaced with corporate censorship and automation, which in turn are driven by corporate goals (advertising) instead of genuine participation by moderators.

          It's my assertion that this is a natural outcome of copyright itself. Copyright demands that content be exclusively owned and profited upon; therefore interaction must be siloed and incentivized accordingly. Even free (as in beer) interaction must bow to this pattern eventually.

    • By AtlasBarfed 2024-08-1919:39

      You should find abandonedware games for him to network play on.

      Right around the time of the mobile phone gaming took a very, very sharp turn to pure sociopathy. It had always been flirting with it, but now the mbas are full on putting as much sociopathic addiction rigging, social bullying, and manufactured demand as possible.

  • By wavemode 2024-08-193:473 reply

    > Though Roblox isn’t profitable, there are some significant caveats to the situation. Over the last twelve months, operating cash flow—a far more important measure than accounting-defined profits—were $650MM, about 20% of revenue. Roblox has been cash-positive for at least twenty-four quarters.

    This feels like an example of the phenomenon highlighted in another recent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41263855

    Namely, that as long as Roblox's cash flow is increasing year-over-year, they probably don't care about profit. (And if cash flow ever does stop increasing, they can always get back to sustainability by pumping the brakes on reinvestment spending.)

    • By Guzba 2024-08-195:172 reply

      Roblox is dilution-maxxing, stock based comp is up 10x since EOY 2020 whereas revenue is only up 3x. SBC is also ~ 1/3 of revenue.

      It's pretty cool to get shareholders to pay your employees so you can be called "operating cash flow positive" as if their comp isn't an expense.

      • By staticautomatic 2024-08-195:334 reply

        IDK about the stock but I’ve interviewed there and their cash comp is legit FU money. Am I misunderstanding you?

        • By Guzba 2024-08-195:43

          I'm referring to companies financial statements where these numbers are reported. It doesn't mean the cash comp isn't high or that a specific job offer won't have a lot of cash comp.

          What it does mean is that, in aggregate, Roblox has issued $1B in new shares to employees in the last 12 months, diluting shareholders by 4% or so. This is the most significant factor making the company cash-flow positive while remaining not profitable. It's essentially the same as investors putting more money into the business constantly.

        • By endtime 2024-08-195:432 reply

          I'm a pretty senior IC at Roblox, and my new hire offer was 40% cash / 60% RSUs. It's now closer to 33/67 with refresher grants.

          Roblox pays very competitively (see levels.fyi). The apparent strategy is to try to hire lots of long-tenured L6+ Googlers (seriously, it's crazy how many former Googlers I work with).

          • By pm90 2024-08-1911:381 reply

            Having lots of ex Googlers could honestly go either way. I wouldn’t automatically assume thats a good thing.

            A former mid size company that I worked at had the same scenario and it was definitely not good. They over engineered not just the systems but literally everything else, including the promotion process which involved the whole horse and pony show and was a constant distraction to shipping features while the companys finances struggled.

          • By ckdarby 2024-08-1910:252 reply

            Not a good sign for Roblox. Yes, many smart people, but they weren't industry changing (Google almost never loses) and they didn't get or turned down Google's renewal program to retain talent.

            Looks like a lot who wanted the high pay, but coast along and leverage their past experience to not be dared questioned.

            • By eru 2024-08-1910:381 reply

              Wouldn't that be a fully generalised argument against ever hiring anyone who ever worked at Google?

              (Btw, some people also leave Google for other reasons.)

              • By Jensson 2024-08-1911:201 reply

                If you want people who know how to build stable large scale infrastructure it is hard to go wrong by hiring people from Google. Google rewrites all their products all the time, they shut down and launch new internal systems just as often as they do external, and it is still stable, so the people from there has probably been through a few rewrites of some infrastructure part and knows what are required for that to work.

                • By paulryanrogers 2024-08-1912:551 reply

                  For some definitions of 'stable'. As a user having to swap apps and lose functionality randomly makes it all feel very tenuous.

                  • By eru 2024-08-205:00

                    Google product decisions (and especially what to shut down) isn't really made by the same people who keep the infrastructure up and running.

            • By endtime 2024-08-1916:46

              > coast along and leverage their past experience to not be dared questioned.

              This has not been my experience at all.

        • By paulpauper 2024-08-1912:522 reply

          Roblox's salary ranges from $140861 in total compensation ... Levels.fyi collects anonymous and verified salaries from current and former employees of Roblox.

          does not seem like fu to me

          • By SkittlesNTwix 2024-08-1915:32

            That's $140k for an administrative assistant. Look at the software engineering roles. IC1 starts at $234k and goes significantly upwards from there.

          • By outside415 2024-08-1912:553 reply

            They pay very well for senior roles . Like $700k+ tc

            • By Mistletoe 2024-08-1915:02

              Beginning to see how they aren’t profitable…

            • By ryandrake 2024-08-1914:471 reply

              Every company pays well when you look only at the very top of the engineering pyramid where there are fewer people.

              • By outside415 2024-08-2115:53

                I am talking like IC-5/6. Senior / Staff level.

            • By skeeter2020 2024-08-1913:292 reply

              what's " + tc"?

              • By iosjunkie 2024-08-1913:401 reply

                I'm reading that as $700,000 or more total compensation.

                • By rvba 2024-08-1914:263 reply

                  What's total compensation?

                  Doea this mean 700k base salary (real cash) + bonus (stock options)?

                  On a side note, do senior engineers get company cars?

                  • By erehweb 2024-08-1914:541 reply

                    Total compensation means $700K, some of it being cash, some of it being stock. Company cars are pretty rare in the US, since basically everyone has a car already.

                    • By ecshafer 2024-08-1918:571 reply

                      Company cars are really common in some industries, very rare in others. Ive never heard of it in tech, but I know people in sales that its just part of the gig.

                      • By Arrath 2024-08-1920:42

                        I've not owned a car in 7 years thanks to my engineering gig coming with a work truck for getting around construction sites. Quite enjoy that aspect of it.

                  • By acchow 2024-08-1918:42

                    Roblox will not be issuing stock options now and likely stopped doing so for 4+ years already. The equity component of compensation now will be actual stock (shares) and not options.

                    Another commenter mentioned that cash/equity now has a 33/67 split meaning $700k tc would likely be $230k cash and $470k stocks

                  • By dnissley 2024-08-1917:50

                    Total Compensation is the sum of all the different ways you are paid monetarily. This includes, but is not limited to: Base salary, Bonus, Equity (stock) compensation, Benefits

              • By dflock 2024-08-1913:40

                Total Compensation

      • By MuffinFlavored 2024-08-1914:11

        > SBC

        stock-based compensation

    • By hansvm 2024-08-1913:441 reply

      > if cash flow ever does stop increasing, they can always get back to sustainability by pumping the brakes on reinvestment spending

      This is a point that's sometimes less obvious with cash flow games. It's possible to have positive cash flow even with negative unit economics, _even when no economy of scale can sufficiently improve those unit economics_ [0], so long as you have enough growth and a good cash flow situation.

      That's one of the criticisms Uber has had over the years; are they capable of sustaining their apparent pre-reinvestment profits if they cut out that spending? It's potentially a bit different from the Amazon situation because most of the money is going straight into speculative bets, acquiring competitors, ads, ride subsidies, and other activities designed to lock in the market, and it's unclear if that will give them a meaningful moat, as opposed to, e.g., capital investments in a fantastic, in-house distribution and shipping mechanism.

      Can Roblox actually become sustainable by cutting spending somewhere?

      [0] Imagine a product with -50% unit ROI. For every dollar in revenue you have two dollars in guaranteed costs. However, suppose the product is paid for fairly early relative to those costs (e.g., the business offers a steep discount on yearly subscriptions if you pay up-front, the costs are incurred linearly throughout the year as the subscription is used, and there's a till-the-start-of-next-month plus 30 days lag on billing for computing resources used). You haven't actually used enough resources to be in the red till 6 months after the subscription starts, and you're not actually on the hook for that last payment till 7 months have elapsed. If you're also able to hit a 2x annual growth rate in your paid subscriber count (not realistic for large companies, not uncommon for a few years with good product-market-fit in gaming or some SAAS products), you've paid for the year's losses before the year has ended and still have an extra month at the end where the money is sitting in your account. As your company doubles its subscribers, your coffers will continue to double as well, even if you have indefinitely negative unit economics.

      In the real world you usually have smaller numbers being considered (smaller losses, less growth), allowing the game to go on for many more years.

      • By spywaregorilla 2024-08-1914:591 reply

        Isn't uber is profitable these days with no qualifications?

        • By hansvm 2024-08-1915:41

          Sorry, yes, it's too late to edit, but I perhaps wasn't clear enough about "over the years" vs "now."

    • By spywaregorilla 2024-08-1913:02

      Glossing at their financial statements, about half of that is due to deferred revenue (stuff they sold but haven't delivered on, which I'd guess is sales of their currency that haven't been redeemed). No particular insight on that either way.

  • By IG_Semmelweiss 2024-08-194:184 reply

    I can't recall the exact company name (Edit: it was TCI), but this was a smart accounting move that made one of the big US telcos frogleap the competition in the race for connectivity.

    Basically, the company invested sufficient into long term assets, big infra investments like cabling, towers, etc. Because of accounting rules, they could choose to amortize all of that investment in a straight line over 30 years, OR accelerate depreciation in the short term.

    I believe the company always chose the latter, and the net effect of this was that every year the company would show a loss, 100% related to said infra investments. However, when you carved out depreciation, the company was clearly making increasing amounts of money. Further, all that fiber was capturing new clients, which was free cash flow which they would turn around and capture even more customers with a new round of investments. In effect, the use of accelerated depreciation helped the company manage its tax obligations while expanding aggressively. By deferring tax liabilities and reinvesting capital, the company was able to capture market share and grow its customer base.

    Eventually they had to show income and therefore pay the IRS, but by that time they were at the leading edge of the race and investors rewarded this company's CEO handsomely.

    • By parpfish 2024-08-194:281 reply

      John Malone at TCI?

      (I learned about it from HN here a couple days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41263855)

      • By IG_Semmelweiss 2024-08-194:361 reply

        wow, that is correct.

        I read this in a book over 10 years ago, and now 2 articles about the same trick within the same week.

        • By xNeil 2024-08-195:44

          Cable Cowboy, I'm guessing. Great book!

    • By devsda 2024-08-195:541 reply

      I think Amazon also had a similar strategy.

      They had lot of profit-less years of growth and they have captured a big part of the market share.

      • By Sohcahtoa82 2024-08-1921:34

        I had one of my wife's relatives in 2013 tell me "I'd never buy Amazon stock. They've been in business for 15 years and still are not profitable!" I tried to explain that it's because every dollar of potential profit was funneled back into R&D and company expansion, and that revenue has been growing steadily, but he just didn't get it.

        If he'd bought stock then, he'd have ~10x'd his money in that time, whereas the S&P500 has ~3x'd.

        I would have bought stock myself back then, but I was a broke college student.

    • By jld 2024-08-194:24

      Sounds like John Malone at TCI Cable

    • By mst 2024-08-1915:491 reply

      HN hivemind has already delivered but I've found that for "I can describe it but can't remember the name" an LLM will have a decent chance of surfacing the name given the description (and is usually a very simple case to verify unlike much LLM output).

      • By sgerenser 2024-08-200:541 reply

        Checked this with ChatGPT and it thought I was talking about WorldCom.

        • By mst 2024-08-2114:571 reply

          Just tried with Claude and it got it differently wrong.

          My first guess was that once it became a known good strategy, it proliferated, and therefore LLMs are pulling companies that did the thing but didn't pioneer the thing, but suggesting that gave me yet another wrong answer.

          I think I'm just going to file this under "apparently a pretty terrible case for the technique and I should adjust my heuristics as to when it's worth trying" at this point.

          • By sgerenser 2024-08-2121:42

            ChatGPT actually completely misunderstood the description, and cited WorldCom as using “aggressive accounting” to show excess profits, vs. TCI’s supposed “excess losses.” So it didn’t even manage to find another example of a company doing something similar to TCI.

HackerNews