Is There Still a Reason to Develop Games for Roku?

Appreciate your perspective - it’s a good reminder for me to stay clear-eyed.

Despite all this, I’m still optimistic (or maybe I just want to believe? As they say, faith can move mountains 😊).

I like Roku - both the platform and the potential it has. I just hope they choose the path that favors long-term value over short-term gains. That’s the only way the ecosystem stays healthy for everyone - devs, users, and shareholders alike.

Usually it is done in desperation to conserve cash...

Roku being publicly traded and having to appease their shareholders with regular increases in profit is the largest reason.

They also lack the capital/R&D, vision, and competence to grow as a company, so they're doing what's much easier, "quality fade."

There are two kinds of shareholders: those who chase revenue growth and those who focus on EPS (earnings per share).

The ones who value revenue growth are rare. It's well known that investors reward profit metrics over long-term growth.

This is common in the industry and has ruined companies, and none of them actually care, because what's more important than profit they can't "guarantee" as easily in the future, is short-term profit they can bet on.

They used their capital smartly to launch with good products and software and now they consider the bulk of the work out of the way.

They want their investment to sit back and profit, running on a skeleton crew.

I want to have hope for Roku. But I have extensive experience with failing companies and this stinks to high heaven.

But by comparison to other platforms like Quest or Steam? That's what I meant, people are drawn to those platforms when they think gaming, and not Roku.

I know Roku isn’t meant to compete with Quest or Steam in terms of raw power. But that’s not the point. In 95% of cases, Roku is used exactly as intended - for video content. And that’s totally fine.

What’s frustrating is that the platform seems almost deliberately hostile to developers - especially game developers - rather than simply being limited.

It doesn’t need to be powerful to support trivia, logic, or NES-style 2D games that fit perfectly into short 10–20 minute play sessions between shows. With its simple remote control and environment, it could be great for that. But instead, developers are met with barriers, not support.

Take the Commodore 64 or Arduino as examples - both are (or were) extremely limited in terms of hardware. But their openness and strong pro-developer support unleashed massive creativity. Roku could follow a similar path. Instead, developers are met with restrictions, which stifles the very experimentation that could make the platform more engaging.

But considering what you wrote it seems that will not change:

outsourcing more of their development as time goes on, cheapening their hardware, reducing customer service

That is usually not a good sign as it means losing internal expertise and potentially loss of strategic control, which usually leads to slower iteration, lower code quality, and lack of product vision.

Usually it is done in desperation to conserve cash...

Great insight, I really enjoyed reading both your comments.

The lack of HTML/CSS/Java limits a ton of functionality, but it's not your priority as a game dev, which is fine. It's functionality you can easily get with android TV if you need it, too.

And, don't get me wrong, they're plenty powerful. But by comparison to other platforms like Quest or Steam? That's what I meant, people are drawn to those platforms when they think gaming, and not Roku. Roku would have to change their ecosystem, support, and invest heavily in the development, and that's a hilarious concept while they're doing a quality fade.

They built up a reputation and loyalty, now it's time to increase profit and cut costs. This is standard playbook stuff for this market.

Strong evidence points towards it: outsourcing more of their development as time goes on, cheapening their hardware, reducing customer service, and replacing them with us. That's why they just put more capital into this site. It's far cheaper than real customer support, just like these perks for their expert program.

It's really no surprise they treat devs poorly, even if it's just via lack of support and stagnation and not directly.

easytodobetterThanks for comments and sharing your opinion!!

From my perspective:

-- Unity/Godot/HTML5  --

I honestly don’t mind that there’s no Unity or Godot support - Roku are low-cost devices in a niche market, and adding support for big engines likely wouldn’t be worth it. I’m also fine with the lack of HTML5/JavaScript - Roku decided to have their own ecosystem, and that’s okay with me.

-- Hardware --

Performance-wise, Roku is not that bad at all. If you’ve ever worked with set-top boxes or TV platforms, you know Roku is actually comparable to, and often better than cheap HTML-based TVs and Android boxes. Roku OSD GUI and OS interface is simple and responsive, which I appreciate. For $30–50, it’s IMHO solid hardware.

-- What should be better --

What really bothers me is that their own ecosystem feels unnecessarily hostile to developers. Instead of encouraging creative uses of the platform beyond video, they often make it feel like you’re actively fighting the system. Honestly? That sucks.

Yes, Roku is clearly designed primarily for video consumption. But just because games aren’t the focus doesn’t mean the platform has to sabotage them. With just a bit more flexibility, Roku could support more creative use cases — without risking their core business.

-- Lack of formatting here --

Haha, totally agree - happens to me as well

Have a great day!!!

8bitsten No support for Unity, Godot, or other engines besides Brightscript and Scenegraph, iirc.
Very underpowered hardware compared to other platforms like mobile, quest, etc.
Low discoverability because I don't see them promote games in the store, ever.
No controller standard.

Games, nope. Worth making anything else? I wouldn't say so, either.

No HTML, CSS, JavaScript, DOM, or WebView. You can't embed web pages or use modern web UI.
Apps are written in BrightScript with SceneGraph, which is rigid and lacks dynamic layout flexibility. Every UI element must be statically defined.
Apps cannot fetch data in the background or run multiple threads. All data loading is sequential and only happens while the app is active.
Roku devices have low RAM and CPU power. Rendering multiple feeds with live updates or images will cause lag, crashes, or freezing.
Roku OS does not support persistent widgets or services. You can’t run anything outside the active app context.
Roku’s monetization favors video apps.
There is no built-in support for RSS, JSON, or calendar feeds. Developers must manually build parsers and UI for every type of feed they want to display.
Layouts are built with Roku’s proprietary XML-based system and are very limited
No real-time rendering of dynamic web content or widgets

Looks like Roku is made from the ground up not to be useful besides video. This is very obviously mostly because they don't want openness to impact revenue streams, but my opinion is that in the long term, it's shortsighted and impacts valuable features and functionality that could elevate Roku above their competition and generate more than enough revenue to cover the investment in development.

And pardon the lack of formatting, it seems after this huge refresh, this site still can't handle copy-pasted text and gives me an HTML error that's not worth my time troubleshooting. It shouldn't happen, period.