<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1488264128422678535" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1488264128422678535</a><p>> for a price "in the low seven figures"<p>That's a lot cheaper than I expected, considering it has a dedicated daily user base in the millions. ~$1/active user is an absolute steal if you are just talking customer acquisition, let alone the actual asset and brand. NYT essentially just bought the hottest new social network.<p>On the other end though, a single developer getting paid millions for a few days worth of work certainly doesn't hurt.
Link to the game: <a href="https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/wordle/" rel="nofollow">https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/wordle/</a><p>Pretty fun. If you read his homepage <a href="https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/</a> he mentions he created Reddit's "The Button" and "Place" April Fools games. Dude's pretty creative.
The webdesign philosophy of wordle is practically the opposite of NYT's. Wordle is free, accountless, low friction. NYT will turn this into a subscription funnel, and it will lose all of its charm.<p>I look forward to continue playing until it gets moved to NYT, and then dropping off as soon as they put up a signin gate.
Nice job to the developer, this is probably the perfect time to sell. Honestly, I could imagine the price dropping by half in a few weeks as the fad dies down.<p>Let NYT figure out how to monetize a simple easily copied game like this. I don't envy the team who is responsible for making this deal profitable for them.
What exactly are the NYT buying here? Are they buying the traffic which must be quite large. Or are they buying users? Surely Wordle is a passing fad and, in a year, will retain less than 40% of all players playing right now. After that, how many are going to buy a NYT subscription based on this.<p>They could have gotten Wordle recreated in less than a week. iirc NYT used to employ Rich Harris of Svelte fame so I would imagine they have the developer skills to recreate Wordle.<p>Are they buying a brand? How can they make money off it?<p>Is this a marketing/advertising play?
When wordle first started to rise in popularity, I saw a lot of comments that the one-a-day format was too limiting, and people would get bored and forget about the site because one puzzle doesn't offer enough engagement. I think that actually it had the opposite effect, keeping people coming back every day. It just goes to show that what people say they want, and what actually works, can be very different.
For those of you thinking and commenting this was sold too cheap: that's a life changing amount of money right that, you won't be able to spend it if you play it smart. Keep in mind that wordle went from a cost to a net + for the dev in a very short time, and that there was no business model.<p>Don't give up the day job, buy a chunk of real estate and 'level up' in one go based on a happy accident, this is found money. And if you think it is worth 10's of millions then you probably should have made a deal with the author yourself, easy money, right?<p>Better <i>a</i> deal at a lower than optimal valuation than <i>no</i> deal at the best possible price.<p>This thing may go down as fast as it went up, better to capitalize on it while it's hot.
I think the New York Times got the perfect price for it, given that half the comments in this thread are "wow, that's a lot cheaper that I expected", and that the other half are "wow, that's a ridiculous windfall for just a few days of work".
I remember when almost everyone here was against his choice to not monetize from the first day. Instead he released a user friendly app, no ads, no trackers. Great success, massive user base, huge money.<p>Well played.
The conspiracy theorist in me suggests this is a long winded way to prevent people from clearing their history to circumvent the free article limit, lest they lose their Wordle score.<p>The technologist in me suggests he’s right.
Considering Zynga paid over $50 million to buy Words With Friends [1] back in 2011, the price seems awfully low. Then again, who knows, maybe the creator is simply indifferent to worldly gain, considering he didn't even bother to include a URL in the social share string simply because it looked "trashy." [2]<p>[1]: <a href="https://venturebeat.com/2011/07/05/zynga-paid-53-3m-to-buy-words-with-friends-mobile-game-maker-newtoy/" rel="nofollow">https://venturebeat.com/2011/07/05/zynga-paid-53-3m-to-buy-w...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.famitsu.com/news/202201/07247076.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.famitsu.com/news/202201/07247076.html</a>
Here goes the private, ad-free experience. Hopeful Wardle sold it under certain conditions considering he didn’t monetize when he had the chance.<p>I know it’ll remain like it was for some time but eventually be monetized.
I like the one-a-day idea, and that it's the same for everyone.<p>However, the game itself is exactly the same as 'Lingo' - an old US show that still has a UK version airing right now. It has also had its own app for a while.<p>It's amazing how a couple of extra touches can make something explode in popularity.
Pro tip: the entire game is self-contained within the page that you download, so you can take an offline copy - you know, in case it happens to change for the worst in future...
Just heard of Wordle due to this thread. I am not sure if it exists outside of the UK (it must do!) but the mechanics of this game are pretty much the same as the Mastermind board game[0]. Instead of coloured pegs, its 5 letter words. Very cool.<p>[0]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)</a>
Can someone explain me how come Wordle can be acquire since it is an implementation of another game called Lingo? Isn't there some copyright or other intellectual property belonging to someone else?
«“I am a bit suspicious of mobile apps that demand your attention and send you push notifications to get more of your attention,” Wardle told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 [On Jan 5]. “There are also no ads. I’m not doing anything with your data, and that is also quite deliberate as well.”<p>Wardle, explaining the reasons behind his decision not to monetize Wordle, asked, “Why can’t something just be fun on the internet?”<p>“I’m fortunate enough. I’m in a position where I’m comfortable. I don’t have to charge people money for this. I don’t begrudge people if they’re making things and charging money for them online. That’s fine. But with Wordle, that was never the goal,” Wardle said. “And I would, ideally, like to keep it that way.”»<p><a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2022/01/27/wordle-the-global-phenomenon-thats-not-pulling-in-any-revenue/" rel="nofollow">https://www.marketplace.org/2022/01/27/wordle-the-global-phe...</a>
The source code and word lists of Wordle is easily accessible, and runs completely client side -- anyone can clone and host their own instance if they want.<p><a href="https://reichel.dev/blog/reverse-engineering-wordle.html#looking-at-the-source" rel="nofollow">https://reichel.dev/blog/reverse-engineering-wordle.html#loo...</a>
I don't know the ultimate fate of Wordle, but I'm comforted by the thought of thousands of programmers all over the world creating and hosting their own little versions and sharing them with friends and family. It's so simple that it practically begs to be implemented in whichever language you happen to be dabbling in at the moment.
> Wordle was acquired for an undisclosed price in the low-seven figures.<p>Did I read that right ? Wordle was valued above 1M. It seems crazy from the outside but I guess I never realized how popular it.
Irrespective of the acquisition, I do not think people will be playing Wordle to the same extent in 6 months - certainly not in 12 months. This is a great exit for Josh to get out at/near the peak of popularity.
Glad the guy made bank from it. I'd literally had a few worried minutes about the injustice of making something so viral and it not e.g. translating to more security health and happiness for his family.
How I hope the New York Times improves Wordle:<p>> The Wordle URL moves to <a href="https://newyorktimes.com/wordle" rel="nofollow">https://newyorktimes.com/wordle</a>. That is all.<p>How I hope the New York Times monetizes Wordle:<p>> The Wordle URL moves to <a href="https://newyorktimes.com/wordle" rel="nofollow">https://newyorktimes.com/wordle</a>, and they add a small NY Times logo to the Share page. Clicking it takes you to the newspaper's front page. That is all.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it?<p>"On March 21, 2012, Draw Something was bought by the gaming company Zynga for $180 million. The game's popularity peaked on the day of the sale, and the number of daily active users tumbled from 15 million to 10 million by early May."<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_Something" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_Something</a>
This reminds me of another fad (Draw Soemthing). Zynga bought OMGPOP for $200M [1] right at its peak of popularity, shutting it down a year later [2].<p>Remember another fad: HQ Trivia [3]?<p>I honestly don't even know what Wordle is. No shade on anyone who enjoys it. I just don't think anyone will be talking about it in 6 months.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/03/21/zynga-acquires-omgpop-maker-of-draw-something/?sh=569bb7a42821" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/03/21/zynga-acq...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/04/zynga-shuts-down-omgpop-one-year-after-acquiring-it-for-200m/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/04/zynga-shuts-down-omgpop-on...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://productmint.com/what-happened-to-hq-trivia/" rel="nofollow">https://productmint.com/what-happened-to-hq-trivia/</a>
I still enjoy "playing" this every day. I'm down to a 3-4 guess average. I suppose I'll keep playing as long as my Safari Web App continues to function the same as it does today. Once it no longer works or is locked behind a bunch of ads then I'll go back to doing something else for 10-30 mins every morning.
for what it's worth, I don't think the NYT will "ruin" Worlde. If they roll it into the NYT website there will already be ads and subscription solicitations all around it as part of the normal page UI. The game itself can still be free and relatively uncluttered. I doubt the overall experience will change much and they'll probably make their "low seven figures" back in a relatively short time.<p>I'm over Worlde, personally. I started when it first showed up on hn a few weeks ago and stopped recently. It was fun, it was a little daily thing. but it's an easy game and I've moved on
Odd that they (understandably) don't disclose what they paid, but then drop the rather unambiguous hint of "lower seven figures." Congratulations to Wardle; not a bad exit for an ingeniously simple web-based game.
It's funny but I've always payed for the NYT crossword subscription even though I tend to only pay for the NYT on the "trial" rate which I think is like $1 a week. I enjoy doing the crossword that much. I like doing the wordle too and would miss it. My day is mostly work so I really enjoy a game that challenges me and helps me get my brain going but also <i>ends</i> so there is no more playing. Crosswords and wordle are great in that regard. Could the NYT be on to something in gaming? I don't know that area but would be keen to know what gaming professionals think.
How does the New York Times have all this capital to spend / invest / burn, while other media companies (especially journalism) are struggling so much just to keep their lights on?
I don't understand how this game can be commercialized. Crosswords actually have to be written and the quality of the game relates to how much effort goes into making it. Anyone with a dictionary file can host a World clone.<p>Not sayings its a bad game--its a great idea--just don't see what the value is in buying it. I'm not even sure what exactly they bought, it doesn't really have any monetization/userbase/IP.
Is the game idea even ownable? I didn't think that board game rulesets were copyrightable, only the graphics.<p>Can I just host a wordle clone and bot add the NYT's latest word every day at midnight from Twitter? Can you copyright "the english dictionary word that was used on Wordle NYT today"?<p>I feel like the owner basically is laughing to the bank on this, they've bought.. a domain? The brand "wordle"? Even that?
i don't get it.<p>wordle got popular because NYT publicized it, then they buy it.<p>why would they buy it? They could've just cloned it in a few days with their team, no?
How is different from 10,000 other browser-based ad-supported games?<p>Wordle seems pretty primitive by comparison to some of those, and the only competitive advantage it has, is that you can share your attempts at guessing with friends.<p>Also, they only have 2315 possible words as answers, so this is going to get really stale in a few months to a year.<p>Seems not worth paying 7 figures for, but what do I know?
I just stopped playing Wordle this week since I’ve lost interest (even on Hard Mode).<p>Buying a fad at peak popularity is a strange business decision.
It feels like an insane amount of money for something that I cannot imagine anyone talking about in a few weeks.<p>My understanding is also that this is not a particularly new game, that there are other games just like it that have come and gone. If that is the case than all NYT is really buying is the name, which, admittedly, is pretty good.
My mom loves Scrabble and Boggle and it's been really great sharing Wordle results with her everyday.<p>Felt like we hadn't had a real societal phenomenon since Tiger King. It might just be a flash in the pan and gone in a couple months, but it's been the most wholesome one since Pokemon Go.
Everyone posting #Wordle scores this week will receive 10 instead of 5 free NYT articles for the next three months.<p>Paid NYT subscription will entitle you to a daily email (at midnight your time) with daily Wordle answer and a recommended random sequence to post on social.
Oh man, another great game eaten by the big guys. Alternative - <a href="https://wordlle.app" rel="nofollow">https://wordlle.app</a><p>Anyone here care to speculate on the reason why we are seeing so many acquisitions in the game space?
Well, I'm not <i>as</i> upset about this as I was about the Microsoft/Actiblizzard merger, but I just can't wait for those "You've used 3 of your 5 free wordles for the month" modal popups to show up!
I wonder what % of NYT app users do the daily crossword. I would imagine its a very significant percentage, which likely is why NYT is interested in acquiring and integrating a new word game into their app experience.
I think this is excellent purchase by NY Times and really good outcome for dev, so for both I congratulate and wish them the best. Wordle will find a good home in NYT and dev gets to enjoy money as well as fame.
Does this mean Wordle was a free to play game?
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish</a>
I imagine they'll probably let people play for free but try to monetize by holding back your score history if you're not logged in. Any other ideas on how they might feature gate this?
<a href="https://wordlegame.org/" rel="nofollow">https://wordlegame.org/</a> <-- exists<p>I actually thought this was the "real" wordle for about a week.
I don't quite understand why the NYT didn't just create its own version of the game? Are the users so valuable? Is the game copyrighted? Is that a thing?
Everybody is now talking about NYT buying Wordle. Not that they would care about the cost as such, but they already seem to have recouped it, in my opinion.
But the problem for me is that it seems he didn't invent it. Five years ago this guy built this exact game, also called Wordle:
<a href="https://twitter.com/StevenCravotta/status/1481318799160733700/" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/StevenCravotta/status/148131879916073370...</a><p>He reached out to Josh Wardle to donate the profit he was suddenly making to charity etc. It took some time but eventually Josh responded.<p>Now that Josh has sold his copycat game I wonder if he's going to share the income?
It's insane that they purchased it - the game itself is a rip-off of a UK gameshow from the 1980s: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(British_game_show)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(British_game_show)</a>
I can't read this link, but presumably this is the same content without the paywall? <a href="https://www.nytco.com/press/wordle-new-york-times-games/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytco.com/press/wordle-new-york-times-games/</a>
I don't know what it is but the hype around Wordle has actually made me not want to give it a try. Is there a word to describe someone that gets discouraged from trying things that feel "mainstream"?
As a bit of a counterpoint to the downsides of NYT's eventual soft-paywall, I think that this fits their arsenal of games rather nicely. I just spent 30 minutes playing around with their catalog of free daily challenges and Wordle fits in very well objectively and aesthetically. I don't think it would have been feasible to expect the dev to pay for server costs of millions of visits per day for what was meant to be a project for his family. While NYT is Bizarro King Midas when it comes to acquistions, this is probably the best case outcome long-term.<p>Link to try them yourself:
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/crosswords" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/crosswords</a>
> At the time it moves to The New York Times, Wordle will be free to play for new and existing players, and no changes will be made to its gameplay.<p>"At the time" is the sticky bit.
This makes perfect sense and fits in well with their games subscription offering [0]. I'll be sad to see Wordle go behind a paywall but this is great for the creator.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.nytco.com/press/both-cooking-and-games-reach-1-million-subscriptions/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytco.com/press/both-cooking-and-games-reach-1-m...</a>
What is the NYT buying here? If they paywall it or put ads on it, anyone can easily make a Wordle clone as long as they give it a different name and don't copy the original code.
I suppose we/(I?) should get started on an independent version. There's no way the Times doesn't some how paywall or otherwise ruin this.
Dordle is arguably more fun and won't be hidden behind a paywall in the near future :) <a href="https://zaratustra.itch.io/dordle" rel="nofollow">https://zaratustra.itch.io/dordle</a>
So will this post [1] replace the infamous HN Dropbox comment [2]?
[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916899" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29916899</a>
[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224</a>
> "The company said the game would <i>initially</i> remain free to new and existing players."<p>(emphasis mine) Guess that means a paywall in 3...2...
Wordle is too easy if you have a text editor and a scrabble word finder. Neither of which I would consider cheating... I think it's a fad unless they change the game up.