$10K Bets on Roblox Builders
- Stephen Dypiangco
- Jan 18
- 6 min read
Join 2.5K+ business leaders (at Roblox, Epic Games, Xbox) subscribed to the #1 Roblox newsletter: sign up here
Making a hit Roblox game is incredibly hard, but the teams that are able to reach the top of the UGC gaming platform's charts reap incredible financial rewards upwards of several million dollars to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the title's longevity.
One company that's going about placing lots of bets on talented Roblox creators is UK-based LFG Studio, which started its own Roblox accelerator program in 2025. I appreciate the team's novel approach to building and growing within the Roblox ecosystem, so I was happy to hear that they were back this year to fund a new cohort of talented Roblox creators (applications open now until the last week of February).
I asked to LFG team to tell me about what hey learned from their first cohort, how the program is evolving, and what they're looking for next. Here my interview with David Statter (Head of Developer Relations LFG) and Niall Rush (Head of Program LFG).
Max Power Gaming: What were the biggest lessons/takeaways from running the first group of developers in the Fall of 2025?
David: The biggest lesson was that structure matters just as much as funding. Developers didn’t just value the money, they valued clarity, momentum, and accountability. In fact, it was the teams who needed the money least, but valued the expert’s knowledge and experience, who achieved the best results.
We also learned that community is a force multiplier. Playtests, peer feedback, and shared progress created motivation that most teams don’t get when building alone.
On the flip side, we learned we need to be more intentional about mentorship depth and access. Developers want tactical insight from people who’ve already shipped hits, not just general guidance.
Finally, time zones and cadence matter more than expected. Global cohorts work, but they need smarter scheduling and smaller sub-groups to stay inclusive.
Niall: The importance of going into development with an open mind, and being ready to reconfigure everything early if your idea isn’t working. Having a clear vision and testing your ideas as soon as you can is essential.
We already knew that it was important and had configured the first few weeks of the program around this, but it was so heavily underlined in practice that we’re amending the schedule and milestones for the next program to even more ruthlessly encourage early playtesting and prototyping.
MPG: Who participated in your initial program, and what generally made their applications stand out?
David: Cohort 1 was mostly small, ambitious teams and solo developers who already had strong concepts and some execution muscle. While there were some surprises, the pitches we most resonated with were the teams that saw the program through to the end and shipped their game.
The strongest applications demonstrated:
A clear core loop
An understanding of who the game was for
Honest awareness of gaps (Monetization, live ops, scope)
Teams that said “we know what we’re good at, and here’s what we need help with” consistently rose to the top.
Niall: We have a wide range of teams, all the way from young solo developers to industry professionals working on a side project. In a couple of cases we had established teams looking to enter the Roblox space with a unique concept, but this was more of a minority; we draw the vast majority of our applications and participants from the Roblox community.
The main factors that made applications stand out was a clear and realistic plan for production, and a concept that was particularly well tuned to the Roblox audience. It’s a unique platform with unique behaviours, and if you can demonstrate you understand that, it’s a real advantage. But the best idea in the world is irrelevant if you can’t ship your game.
MPG: What positive and negative feedback did you get from participating developers?
David: The positives were very consistent:
Strong sense of community
High value from playtesting and peer feedback
Workshops that respected dev time
Clear communication and structure"
The main negatives were constructive:
Developers want more access to senior, proven creators
Restrictions around when we could host sessions due to time zones
People wanted more informal interaction outside scheduled calls
Importantly, feedback wasn’t about dissatisfaction, it was about wanting more depth, which is a good problem to have, and something we’re already working on for the next program.
Niall: The developers really appreciated the community aspect: working together with the rest of the cohort towards the same goal at the same time was really motivating. The early workshops on refining concepts were singled out, as were the regular playtests and mentorship sessions.
There was some less positive feedback around regular production check-ins - not every developer enjoys that extra structure and accountability, but we do think it helps the vast majority of teams stay on track.
MPG: What games have been released thus far, and how have they performed?
David: Over half of the projects have already entered public testing or early release, with others approaching launch this month.
Performance has been promising for where these games started:
Early concurrency in the 100s for some titles and a couple have peaked over 1000 CCU
Strong qualitative feedback loops
Clear improvements in onboarding, retention hooks, and scope discipline compared to where teams began
For us, success in Cohort 1 wasn’t about instant hits. It was about shipping, learning, and de-risking concepts. On that front, the cohort delivered. We’ve also learned a lot about what we can best do to support these teams in future cohorts.
MPG: How has the program evolved? What’s new this next time around?
David: Cohort 2 is more focused and more structured.
What’s new:
Clearer expectations and milestones
Per-Team marketing and QA budget for testing and early feedback
Deeper, more tactical mentorship sessions and more guest speakers
Better cohort segmentation by time zone
More intentional playtesting and feedback loops
Stronger emphasis on live ops, retention, and monetisation earlier
We’re not chasing novelty for its own sake. We’re backing interesting ideas in the hands of teams who can move fast and build well.
Niall: One of the things that was particularly impactful for the teams was regular group playtests. However, these are less uniquely useful if much of the feedback consists of bug reports.
In the next program, we’re offering free QA so that devs can focus on qualitative factors in these tests, and be more confident in the stability of their games and updates. We also noted that some teams were unsure on how to promote their game in the early stages, and were nervous about spending money on the wrong thing.
Next time, we’re offering to run the sponsored ads and UA for teams, so they can focus on live ops.
MPG: What are you looking for in selecting developers now? How has this changed?
David: We’re now prioritizing:
Teams that can ship, not just ideate
Builders who want feedback and act on it
Games designed as live services, not one-off experiences
People who want to improve themselves and their teams
Compared to last time, we’re even more deliberate about upside. We were selective in the first cohort, and we’ve tightened that further based on what we’ve learned. Last time we purposefully made the application simple and focused on a lot of manual filtering of candidates, this time we’ve added more depth and intention to the application form so while we expect less initial applications, we also expect higher conversion rates.
Niall: We’re particularly keen on self-reliant teams or individual all-rounders who can get a game into a launchable state by themselves. While we do offer support in finding trusted contractors, the whole process can derail production if it doesn’t go according to plan. We also find that self-sufficiency helps teams set a realistic scope for the program.
MPG: What advice do you have for developers interested in applying for this next round?
David: Be honest. Be specific. Be realistic.
Show us:
What you’re building
Why it should exist
What you’re unsure about
How you’d use support if accepted
You don’t need a perfect game. You do need conviction, momentum, and openness to change. The program works best for developers who want to learn fast, iterate hard, and treat Roblox like a long-term business, not a side project.
Niall: Try to get strong coverage of skills across your team, and take the time to write a good application. If you can’t concisely explain your concept on the form, you won’t be able to easily introduce it to players. Games with a great ‘elevator pitch’ are games that the community can easily understand and get excited about.
Want more Roblox insights like this?
Join 2.5K+ subscribers to our weekly Roblox newsletter,
read by business leaders at Roblox, Epic Games, Xbox, and Disney.
Comments