> So, an ai generated psuedo-game engine with a majority of users under the age of 13? I'm sure that WILL make a lot of money. Those of us who didn't grow up playing Roblox will find this comparison impossibly stupid.

> ...with a majority of users under the age of 13? I'm sure that WILL make a lot of money. > ... will find this comparison impossibly stupid.

I'm ignoring the insinuations here for obvious reasons.

1. Roblox is the newest (note: not necessarily the best) iteration of the genre that Secondlife & (to a limited extent) modded Minecraft servers occupy: An interactive 3D platform that permits user-generated content.

2. Generative models just accelerate their development up to the brick wall of complexity much faster.

> Some what related: im still amazed that no one has made a Roblox competitor

This comment is just the HN Dropbox phenomenon, *again*, only this time from the angle that thinks it's easy to build a "pseudo game-engine" from scratch.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

Few competitors exist because of the moat they have built in making their platform easy to develop on, so much so that kids can use them with little issue.

> , as in, a vague social building game that tricks children into wasting money on ridiculous MTXs.

This part is entirely separate from the technical aspects of the platform. Roblox is a feces-covered silver bar, but the silver bar (their game platform) still exists.

> Maybe you are right, but I think that taking an already sorry state of affairs, and then removing the only imagination or STEM skills required by giving children access to GenAI.... is a really depressing thought.

This is a hyper-nihilistic opinion on children laid bare.

To think that the children (*with the dedication to make a game in the first place*) wouldn't try to learn about debugging the code that the models are spitting out, or that 100% of them would just stop writing their own code entirely, is a cynical viewpoint not worth any attention.