Roblox license types differ mainly by scope: are you licensing the experience itself, or only specific paid products inside it? Roblox now supports both models, and choosing the wrong one can make a simple collaboration much broader than it needs to be.
A full-game licence is intended for a game built around the protected IP. The newer in-game sales licence is for approved IP-based passes and developer products inside an eligible experience, allowing the rest of that game to remain outside the licensed product set.
Roblox license types at a glance
Roblox license types starts with how much of the experience uses the IP.
A full-game licence grants permission to build an entire Roblox experience around the IP and places the collaboration at the centre of the game. An in-game sales licence is narrower and attaches to specific monetised items. Both can have rights-holder rules, revenue sharing and eligibility requirements.
The in-game model is therefore attractive to established games that want an official crossover without reclassifying every system as licensed content. A dedicated adaptation, by contrast, should not try to squeeze a whole branded game into a licence designed for a few products.
How revenue sharing differs
Roblox license types also changes the licensed revenue scope.
Roblox describes the in-game sales model as applying the rights-holder share to the licensed game passes and developer products. That is its main commercial advantage over a full-game agreement when most of the experience is unrelated to the IP.
For either model, the exact percentage comes from the rights holder’s licence terms. Roblox automates the split once the agreement is active, so creators should judge the rate before applying rather than discovering the economics after the feature is built.
When an in-game sales licence makes more sense
Roblox license types matters most for existing non-branded games.
Use the in-game model when the collaboration can be cleanly contained: a branded permanent pass, a repeat-purchase licensed product, or another approved paid feature inside a game that already has its own identity. The product should still feel meaningful, but it does not need to redefine the entire experience.
This route also makes separation easier. If the licence ends, Roblox requires the licensed products to come off sale while unrelated game systems can continue operating normally.
When a full-game licence is the better fit
Roblox license types is clearer when the IP defines the whole game.
If the IP is the reason the experience exists, a full-game licence is the clearer model. The setting, progression, characters and core loop can all be designed around the property rather than pretending only the shop is licensed.
Full-game licences can also be appropriate where the rights holder expects consistent branding and content standards across the whole experience. The licence listing defines the actual conditions, so creators should not assume every IP is offered under both models.
What both licence types still require
Roblox license types still leaves approval to the rights holder.
Neither route is automatic permission. Creators still request the licence, meet eligibility rules, accept the content standards and comply with Roblox policies. Agreements may be perpetual or time-limited, and rights holders can reject requests that do not fit their goals.
The practical rule is simple: choose the smallest licence that truthfully matches the project. That keeps the scope understandable for the creator, the rights holder and the players who will eventually buy the licensed content.
Roblox license types can involve perpetual or time-limited terms.
Roblox license types should be settled before submitting a pitch.
Official Roblox licensing information
Compare the live licence types in the official Roblox Creator Hub before committing to a design. The best choice is the agreement whose actual scope matches what the game will do, not simply the newest licence type.
THE CLICK CREATOR GUIDE
