The opposite of corporate exploitation is not necessarily ‘no exploitation’ but more like a donation or microfinance type model, something where the owner sells directly to a consumer to exploit their production.
Did the creator sell to NYT because it was in line with their moral principles? Or was it more pragmatic due to living in a system where corporate exploitation is explicitly state sanctioned and therefore controls the majority of financial power?
I think one of the major remaining organizations that actually pays real journalists bought a word game their readers will enjoy and help keep their eyeballs on the drier but more important material, and compensated the creator with a life changing amount of money. Everyone wins.
And good for him. In less than a year, the fad will have passed and wordle will have 10% the users it has now. And lol at the idea that those users donations would have ever amounted to anything. Not to mention the hassle of accepting them.
Also, wordle fits perfectly with the rest of NYT’s puzzle games. Honestly, if I made wordle, I’d be honored to have my game land there, aside from the cool million(s).
Yeah, he sold it for a princely sum to one of the only companies that successfully charges a subscription for word games. Really could not have gone better for all involved.
As of May 2014, QuizUp had 20 million users and had raised over $26 million from venture capital investments.
I think these type of Trivia games have just one option, Cash it at the peak of the fad or wait till it gets replaced by another fad.
Considering NYT has dedicated subscribers for it's puzzle games, I think getting Wordle in it is a smart choice and perhaps may be they could turn it around profitably; Even if they don't I'm happy for Josh Wardle.
We need more such successful indie exit stories like this, When there's someone to buy Facebook's Liberapay and IBM's Watson then we need not be too critical about acquisition of a product loved by millions.
Right? I don't mean to rail against the commenter but are they being serious? Wordle is valuable enough to charge at least $1/mo per user. I'd personally say $2/mo to mitigate payment processor fees.
P.S. This is assuming the user base comprises avid daily players (which seems true.) They would definitely get their money's worth.
This would be an ideal support method for a lot of websites, if there was a system which made it practical to transfer small amounts of money with no more hassle than the “<website> wants to accesss <api>” browser prompts…
Heck, we’re already dealing with cookie prompts all over the web; if adding a “$0.01 per article” prompt means we can get rid of the ads and thus get rid of the cookie prompt, it’s not even a net loss for usability
Comments
Your counterpoint is a disingenuous strawman.
The opposite of corporate exploitation is not necessarily ‘no exploitation’ but more like a donation or microfinance type model, something where the owner sells directly to a consumer to exploit their production.
Did the creator sell to NYT because it was in line with their moral principles? Or was it more pragmatic due to living in a system where corporate exploitation is explicitly state sanctioned and therefore controls the majority of financial power?
I think one of the major remaining organizations that actually pays real journalists bought a word game their readers will enjoy and help keep their eyeballs on the drier but more important material, and compensated the creator with a life changing amount of money. Everyone wins.
He sold to NYT because they paid him a million dollars.
And good for him. In less than a year, the fad will have passed and wordle will have 10% the users it has now. And lol at the idea that those users donations would have ever amounted to anything. Not to mention the hassle of accepting them.
Also, wordle fits perfectly with the rest of NYT’s puzzle games. Honestly, if I made wordle, I’d be honored to have my game land there, aside from the cool million(s).
Yeah, he sold it for a princely sum to one of the only companies that successfully charges a subscription for word games. Really could not have gone better for all involved.
I agree, Quizup[1] anyone?
I think these type of Trivia games have just one option, Cash it at the peak of the fad or wait till it gets replaced by another fad.
Considering NYT has dedicated subscribers for it's puzzle games, I think getting Wordle in it is a smart choice and perhaps may be they could turn it around profitably; Even if they don't I'm happy for Josh Wardle.
We need more such successful indie exit stories like this, When there's someone to buy Facebook's Liberapay and IBM's Watson then we need not be too critical about acquisition of a product loved by millions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuizUp
He has apparently said [1] that he invented Wordle after really getting into the NYT's Spelling Bee game.
So it makes sense for that to be it's new home. I'm disappointed I may have to start paying for it, but it's given me a lot of fun.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/wordle-new-yo...
Hear, hear. I'd pay $0.25/year to the original designer to play Wordle.
Nice demonstration of how pointless it would have been to attempt to monetize wordle.
Right? I don't mean to rail against the commenter but are they being serious? Wordle is valuable enough to charge at least $1/mo per user. I'd personally say $2/mo to mitigate payment processor fees.
P.S. This is assuming the user base comprises avid daily players (which seems true.) They would definitely get their money's worth.
How about $0.01 every time you play it?
So up to $3.65 / year for avid users.
So a multiple of $3.65m a year! Payday without any need for third party motivations creeping in.
This would be an ideal support method for a lot of websites, if there was a system which made it practical to transfer small amounts of money with no more hassle than the “<website> wants to accesss <api>” browser prompts…
Heck, we’re already dealing with cookie prompts all over the web; if adding a “$0.01 per article” prompt means we can get rid of the ads and thus get rid of the cookie prompt, it’s not even a net loss for usability