I’ve come up with tic-tac-toe for beginners (only has four squares).
So far, nobody is interested.
mmm
Yup, wouldn’t hesitate. If I wrote a Pulitzer-winning piece about injustice and the demise of the American Dream, and Michael Bay offered me a million so he could turn it into an explosion-fest, I’d cry all the way to the bank.
I would definitely sell, it will only be a matter of time before there are any number of similar games appearing which will reduce the value of Wordle dramatically, so the designer needs to make his money while he can
It’s not selling out, it’s exiting. For many people in tech, an exit is the opposite of selling out - you get to take your money and go on to other interesting projects, instead of getting sucked into the tedium of actually running a company. To them, selling out is being a businessman rather than an innovator, working at the same company year after year, instead of leaving it behind and starting something new.
I don’t consider it at all unscrupulous, in this case, to sell a decent but simple idea to someone willing to pay that much for it. And who will do a good job of marketing it. Although I see no problem in reusing words, presumably the NYT is looking to capitalize on the popularity and will probably add other variations, as others have, without paying anything.
mmmmmm, indeed…
I mean, I personally would never borrow an idea from a fellow Doper, get an indigent tech school programming student to help me flesh it out, then sell it to, say, the Times (plan D: the Chicago Sun-Times…).
.
On a totally random topic, I wonder what would mmm would say if an anonymous 100k of Guilty Conscience Lucre showed up in his PayPal?
If you can make money out of Mean Mr Mustard’s idea, you deserve to keep it.
I’ve spent some time trying to figure out if the 2x2 tic-tac-toe is a solved problem in the way 3x3 tic-tac-toe is. This led me to create the much more interesting 2x2x2 tic-tac-toe.
It’s not “selling out.” There are no principles involved. The guy built something on a lark, and a big company wants to buy it. He’s better off doing that than either continuing to host it for free or trying to monetize it himself. No brainer.
Yes and no. There are 2316 words in the game, which is one a day for 6.3 years. That’s a pretty good lifespan for recycling. The Times may decide to add more. (The game has thousands more words it accepts as guesses that are not used as daily answers.)
The Times has a separate subscription fee for its puzzles, which includes their famous crossword puzzle, plus the popular Spelling Bee, and some other games. The puzzles are not supported by ads, only sub fees. They will undoubtedly add Wordle to that set, with the goal of making their puzzle sub more attractive and draw more subscribers.
Nope, it just plows through them in order. If you wanted to, and if you had even a little JavaScript knowledge, you could cheat and get the right answer first time every day.
And there are, I believe, over a million people who subscribe to the NYT puzzles.
Oh, man, I wish you hadn’t told me that! Must resist looking at the code again…
Is there something inherent in five letter words that means that it couldn’t just become six-letter Wordle at some point?
I’d call selling Wordle as cashing in. It’s not like the creator is sacrificing his artistic integrity, or otherwise compromising himself ethically by selling it, so why not sell it and make $$$?
No !
Excellent idea…