I considered mentioning this in the post but I wanted to keep it short and sweet.
Yeah, Wordle itself is not that complicated, and as you said, other than serving the HTML and JS it requires no server-side processing. I'm definitely going to download the HTML and JS and rehost it, at least just for myself privately.
To me, that's further reason why the Wordle purchase is sad. NYT is essentially buying some HTML, CSS, JS… and a playerbase. Rather than competing by improving their existing puzzles and/or creating new ones, they're just buying out the competition.
Even though technically-minded people like you and me will be able to re-host Wordle quite easily, the general public who lack those skills will still eventually lose access to the original independent Wordle.
Rather than competing by improving their existing puzzles and/or creating new ones, they're just buying out the competition.
The purchase of the game, for apparently "low seven digits", is going to spur tens of thousands of programmers to try to build the next Wordle. To try to capture some of that magic. That's how it works. There is absolutely nothing sad about this. And really the social magic of Wordle is retreating, so it's not like you were going to be anxiously playing your daily Wordle in six months.
NYT basically bought some hype and legitimacy. They seem flush with cash right now (didn't TFG say they were failed or something?), and seem to be massively overpaying for lots of things. They want to make people think of their games, so there you have it. Congrats to Wardle.
Rather than competing by improving their existing puzzles and/or creating new ones, they're just buying out the competition.
If this was a small business, I think I'd agree, but this was a fun side project by someone. If anything, it's a great payout for their side project that they may have never intended to monetize anyway, without breaking it for existing or future users (if they keep their promise of keeping it free and open).
if they keep their promise of keeping it free and open
There is no "promise" other than "initially free", which almost certainly guarantees it will soon be hosted on NYT and require their subscription to play.
I'd imagine the Venn diagram of people who will still be playing Wordle in a year and people who already pay for NYT Crossword/Spelling Bee/etc is... just a circle.
Above all else, the creator deserves a seven figure pay day. I'm extremely happy for him. Everyone bringing value to the world deserves this outcome, we just don't all get to see it. (More often than not, our open source code just gets co-opted and we get a "thanks".)
In opposition to the platforms, we can create or play one of the million clones. Even non technical folks can find these.
Comments
I considered mentioning this in the post but I wanted to keep it short and sweet.
Yeah, Wordle itself is not that complicated, and as you said, other than serving the HTML and JS it requires no server-side processing. I'm definitely going to download the HTML and JS and rehost it, at least just for myself privately.
To me, that's further reason why the Wordle purchase is sad. NYT is essentially buying some HTML, CSS, JS… and a playerbase. Rather than competing by improving their existing puzzles and/or creating new ones, they're just buying out the competition.
Even though technically-minded people like you and me will be able to re-host Wordle quite easily, the general public who lack those skills will still eventually lose access to the original independent Wordle.
The purchase of the game, for apparently "low seven digits", is going to spur tens of thousands of programmers to try to build the next Wordle. To try to capture some of that magic. That's how it works. There is absolutely nothing sad about this. And really the social magic of Wordle is retreating, so it's not like you were going to be anxiously playing your daily Wordle in six months.
NYT basically bought some hype and legitimacy. They seem flush with cash right now (didn't TFG say they were failed or something?), and seem to be massively overpaying for lots of things. They want to make people think of their games, so there you have it. Congrats to Wardle.
If this was a small business, I think I'd agree, but this was a fun side project by someone. If anything, it's a great payout for their side project that they may have never intended to monetize anyway, without breaking it for existing or future users (if they keep their promise of keeping it free and open).
There is no "promise" other than "initially free", which almost certainly guarantees it will soon be hosted on NYT and require their subscription to play.
I'd imagine the Venn diagram of people who will still be playing Wordle in a year and people who already pay for NYT Crossword/Spelling Bee/etc is... just a circle.
These days when I find a really great online service I hope it doesn’t get too popular because a buy-out and monetisation is sure to follow.
I’m happy for the developers but wish it wasn’t necessary.
After some bad luck I've become a local and self-hosted enthusiast for the same reason.
Above all else, the creator deserves a seven figure pay day. I'm extremely happy for him. Everyone bringing value to the world deserves this outcome, we just don't all get to see it. (More often than not, our open source code just gets co-opted and we get a "thanks".)
In opposition to the platforms, we can create or play one of the million clones. Even non technical folks can find these.
The original one, yes.
Paul Lutus[1] has made "Word Game" an open source Wordle clone on his website: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/
Mobile friendly view: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/mobile-display.html ; Announcement thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/wordle/comments/s69nma/word_game/ .
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lutusp