It's amazing to me how HN nonstop celebrates everyone raising money on bullshit rehashed tech ideas but are shitting on this guy for selling to NYT. He built and sold something unlike the vast majority ever will.
Maybe he needed to sell some of it to the NYT in series A, with another round after 6 months to 2 years, but being careful not to go too soon or too late.
After correctly judging the runway and managing the burn rate following series B, more marketing and branding before series C would maximise value for the creator.
Oh I don't mean to shit on the creator. We all got bills to pay. Mad props to him for getting a great payout and moving on. But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit.
> But does the result count as a "nice thing on the Internet"? I can be the judge of that and IMO no at this point it's just one of a million free casual games awaiting some monetization bullshit.
I don't understand the thought process. NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid.
Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games?
> Did you write this comment before doing any research into how NYT handles their games?
I'm somewhat aware of how it works.
> NYT has a bunch of daily mini games that are free and have been for a while. Only the full crossword and the archives are paid.
Well it's like I'm a fish complaining about the fisherman's worm having a hook in it, and you're saying but at least there's a good worm.
Free tier games on NYT clearly serve as feeder for subscriptions. Here's an example of NYT juicing someone's "high" following a free game of spelling bee, in order to push them to subscribe.
I hate this kind of manipulation. Again can't blame the NYT for responding to competitive pressure but the free portion of their game is such an obvious attempt to hook gaming subscribers that I personally really don't see it as a "nice thing".
You can't have your "mad props" and eat them too. Either he sells and you have to suffer the horror of a nag screen to get a free game, or he doesn't, and you don't.
Because it was a comment written without having any context into how NYT handles their games. They assume something about massive monetization that would happen in the future, when the daily wordle will likely remain free forever, just like most other daily games that NYT has.
I do think there's a ton of nice things on the Internet. The FOSS community as a whole and Wikipedia are astounding in their civilization-transforming, anti-capitalistic effect on society. 20 years ago people paid Microsoft for the only half-decent productivity software around, Internet Explorer and freaking Encarta, for crying out loud. I don't think wordle is nearly close to the same level especially after getting bought.
One can be happy for the creator’s individual (and deserved) success, while at the same time begrudge the fundamental change brought about by its acquisition.
Simply saying “everyone shits on this guy” is not really helpful, or accurate.
The people who show up in "tech person does a thing" threads to fawn over said tech person are probably not the same people who complain about ad surveillance by the NYT.
