5 ms·

The Death of Wordle

40 points by 333c 5y ago

tony-allan 5y ago
The current Wordle will live on in 1000 private copies. It's self-contained in a HTML and a JS file with no server requirement other that file hosting.
- 333c 5y ago
  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.
  - tony-allan 5y ago
    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.
    - ohCh6zos 5y ago
      After some bad luck I've become a local and self-hosted enthusiast for the same reason.
  - echelon 5y ago
    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.
  - reustle 5y ago
    > 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).
    - jreese 5y ago
      > 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.
      - gkoberger 5y ago
        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.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    > 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.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    > "the general public who lack those skills will still eventually lose access to the original independent Wordle." The original one, yes. Paul Lutus[1] has made "Word Game" an open source Wordle clone on his website: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/ https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/ Mobile friendly view: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/mobile-display.html https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/mobile-display.html ; Announcement thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/wordle/comments/s69nma/word_game/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wordle/comments/s69nma/word_game/ . [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lutusp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lutusp
returningfory2 5y ago
> But I resent that we live in a system where any independent creativity is exploited for financial gain. So what's the alternative system? One in which creators of delightful projects like Wordle are prevented somehow from making money from their creations? That seems weird and bad.
- js2 5y ago
  The alternative in a capitalist system is something like the NEA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... The OP can also lament something without there being an alternative.
  - dataangel 5y ago
    An NEA alternative won't change that way more people will want to do it than will be needed to do it.
    - js2 5y ago
      And UBI is the answer to that.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  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?
  - warkdarrior 5y ago
    Hear, hear. I'd pay $0.25/year to the original designer to play Wordle.
noah_buddy 5y ago
The reports of WORDLE's death are greatly exaggerated. Whatever, NYT bought a game. Who was going to still be playing in a year? Who was going to be playing till it was done with the scheduled run? I promise you it's increasingly small fractions of the current player base in the hypothetical no sale world. Change is as constant as the sea, the magic would've died out in a few months regardless. Rehost/stop playing/move on.
hdgdkskdhf 5y ago
imgabe 5y ago
I've been playing Wordle religiously for the past 21 days and I'm nothing but happy that the creator was able to get a life-changing amount of money for this very fun game that he generously shared with the world for free. Extrapolating this to "all creativity is exploited for financial gain" is silly. There are millions of websites full of independent creativity that are not being exploited for financial gain, mostly because there's no opportunity to do so. This vision of a world where artists work only for the pure love of making art without considerations of money doesn't exist. It never existed. Artists gotta eat too. And let's get real for a moment here. It's not War and Peace or Beethoven's 5th Symphony or something. It's a very slick version of hangman with an extremely clever virality mechanism. If it goes behind a paywall it will be a mild annoyance at best before people move on to something else. It's probably going to die down anyway as the fad passes.
jamesgreenleaf 5y ago
> This is not to say that I have any animosity towards the game’s creator. Given such a large price tag, it’s hard to imagine not accepting a buyout offer. But I resent that we live in a system where any independent creativity is exploited for financial gain. That's sort of the trade, isn't it? If independent creativity is regularly exploited for profit, that means people are always incentivized to create more. Would they really create as much in a system that offered few or no incentives?
dataangel 5y ago
Oh no! How dare the author of something that millions of people have enjoyed earn one penny from his work! And it's definitely dead now that it might only be available to one of the most successful publications on the planet! /s
madarco 5y ago
NYT bought the NFT of Wordle! This acquisition will forever be remembered as the best example of how NFTs work. They didn't buy the copyright, the source code or any assets, but the de-facto distributed knowledge that they acquired the right to be considered the Wordle Owners.

40 points by 333c 5y ago

The current Wordle will live on in 1000 private copies. It's self-contained in a HTML and a JS file with no server requirement other that file hosting.

333c 5y ago
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.
- tony-allan 5y ago
  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.
  - ohCh6zos 5y ago
    After some bad luck I've become a local and self-hosted enthusiast for the same reason.
- echelon 5y ago
  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.
- reustle 5y ago
  > 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).
  - jreese 5y ago
    > 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.
    - gkoberger 5y ago
      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.
- defaultname 5y ago
  > 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.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "the general public who lack those skills will still eventually lose access to the original independent Wordle." The original one, yes. Paul Lutus[1] has made "Word Game" an open source Wordle clone on his website: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/ https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/ Mobile friendly view: https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/mobile-display.html https://arachnoid.com/wordgame/mobile-display.html ; Announcement thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/wordle/comments/s69nma/word_game/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wordle/comments/s69nma/word_game/ . [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lutusp https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lutusp

returningfory2 5y ago

> But I resent that we live in a system where any independent creativity is exploited for financial gain. So what's the alternative system? One in which creators of delightful projects like Wordle are prevented somehow from making money from their creations? That seems weird and bad.

js2 5y ago
The alternative in a capitalist system is something like the NEA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... The OP can also lament something without there being an alternative.
- dataangel 5y ago
  An NEA alternative won't change that way more people will want to do it than will be needed to do it.
  - js2 5y ago
    And UBI is the answer to that.
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
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?
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  Hear, hear. I'd pay $0.25/year to the original designer to play Wordle.

noah_buddy 5y ago

The reports of WORDLE's death are greatly exaggerated. Whatever, NYT bought a game. Who was going to still be playing in a year? Who was going to be playing till it was done with the scheduled run? I promise you it's increasingly small fractions of the current player base in the hypothetical no sale world. Change is as constant as the sea, the magic would've died out in a few months regardless. Rehost/stop playing/move on.

hdgdkskdhf 5y ago

imgabe 5y ago

I've been playing Wordle religiously for the past 21 days and I'm nothing but happy that the creator was able to get a life-changing amount of money for this very fun game that he generously shared with the world for free. Extrapolating this to "all creativity is exploited for financial gain" is silly. There are millions of websites full of independent creativity that are not being exploited for financial gain, mostly because there's no opportunity to do so. This vision of a world where artists work only for the pure love of making art without considerations of money doesn't exist. It never existed. Artists gotta eat too. And let's get real for a moment here. It's not War and Peace or Beethoven's 5th Symphony or something. It's a very slick version of hangman with an extremely clever virality mechanism. If it goes behind a paywall it will be a mild annoyance at best before people move on to something else. It's probably going to die down anyway as the fad passes.

jamesgreenleaf 5y ago

> This is not to say that I have any animosity towards the game’s creator. Given such a large price tag, it’s hard to imagine not accepting a buyout offer. But I resent that we live in a system where any independent creativity is exploited for financial gain. That's sort of the trade, isn't it? If independent creativity is regularly exploited for profit, that means people are always incentivized to create more. Would they really create as much in a system that offered few or no incentives?

dataangel 5y ago

Oh no! How dare the author of something that millions of people have enjoyed earn one penny from his work! And it's definitely dead now that it might only be available to one of the most successful publications on the planet! /s

madarco 5y ago

NYT bought the NFT of Wordle! This acquisition will forever be remembered as the best example of how NFTs work. They didn't buy the copyright, the source code or any assets, but the de-facto distributed knowledge that they acquired the right to be considered the Wordle Owners.