[ridaj]

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.

[yupper32]

> 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?

[ridaj]

> 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.

https://pasteboard.co/pIS5qkZcXkNB.jpg

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".

[TAKEMYMONEY]

> Mad props to him for getting a great payout

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.

[ridaj]

Sure but I'm still happy for the guy. I don't expect he or anyone to want to make nice things for the Internet.

[foolfoolz]

this comment is why we can’t have nice things on the internet

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Why? What does this comment have to do with it?

[yupper32]

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.

[pbhjpbhj]

Ah yes, NYT bought it for completely altruistic reasons. /s

[TAKEMYMONEY]

The person you're replying to is implying the opposite; they bought it to attract subscribers.

[ridaj]

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.

[paulcole]

Easy to tell someone else to rip up their winning lottery ticket. Much harder to rip up the winning lottery ticket in your own hand.