What do you think of the Wordle guy not monetizing it?

What happened to us, as a society, that creates the expectation that a thing should be monetized?

I don't like ads, on the internet or TV, and therefore refuse to inflict them on anyone who plays the little game apps that I release, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.

Well done to Josh for having the humanity for just making a thing that people enjoy, and stopping there.

Anil Dash said it better than I can: "The real web is @powerlanguish making a game for someone he loves, not smothering it in surveillance-based ads or creepy growth hacks, and limiting it so it doesn’t even try to steal more than a few minutes of your time. Wordle deserves all its success."

Right now, his is ubiquitous because everyone has the same word. There's an odd network effect, where posting it on Twitter means something because everyone had the same exact puzzle. Nobody wants to see how you did on 6Word or whatever. It's a fun game, but it's not inherently fun (something like Scrabble already uses the same parts of your brain)... the fun comes from everyone having the same word every day.

He may not monetize it by selling it on the app store (honestly, who would buy? I think most people would just fizzle out rather than pay $1), but he'll definitely end up monetizing it in a unique way... the gigantic success of this will set him up for a huge number of opportunities (awesome job offers! promotions! raising money for a company! higher consulting rate!) that will last long after Wordle does.

After reading this post I googled to see what Wordle is.

I immediately recognized Wordle as a clone of 'Lingo' [0], a popular TV game show that started somewhere in the 80's, and is still broadcasted today. It's very popular here in the Netherlands.

> But I can't help but feel that the guy is about to let someone else benefit from his creation and am not sure how to feel about that

I'm not sure how the creators of Lingo must feel about this Josh Wardle getting credit for 'creating' a game that they have been broadcasting for over 40 years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(Dutch_game_show)

Pretend Wordle was an open source MIT licensed game that someone created and released online.

Or pretend Wordle is one of the countless examples of freeware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware) that exist online.

Would we be having the same conversation?

It's strange to me that many folks can't accept some people release things and don't necessarily care how it's further used, when the exact thing happens for many other examples of software and software products.

I love the fact that I can only play this once a day and there's nothing I can do about it.

> I'd rather the guy who made the original rather than an app cloning team in China or some bay area tech bro

My two cents is don't think too hard and just enjoy the game. Let it be. Que sera, sera.

Isn't it said in startup circles that ideas are nothing and execution is everything? Isn't it also said elsewhere that money doesn't buy happiness?

Someone else's viral fad doesn't need to fit neatly into some preconceived idealistic notion of success. It's literally a viral fad; the whole point is to not fit neatly into predictable molds.

I've launched multiple successful things that have gone viral where I didn't earn a cent. It was simply not the objective.

More importantly I don't want to taint my things by selling out. It would destroy the soul of the project.

I once wrote a popular browser-based tool for a popular game. Other tools existed in the space at the time I started the project, but I felt the need to go at the problem my own way, and I managed to add some mathematical sophistication that the other extant tools lacked. I did all of this purely for my own benefit: I was playing this game, and I wanted this tool to exist to aid in doing so.

I threw it online for other people to use, and it quickly gained traction. I'd estimate that it has had over ten thousand users, possibly multiple tens. Some of these users expressed, unprompted, an interest in giving me money for providing this tool. I simply set up a page on a payments website that caters to creators, and linked it from the tool. I provide no benefits for contributions; it is purely to provide an avenue for those that wish to do so.

If you total up the amount of work I've put into the project, and the total amount of money I've received, I would estimate I've earned somewhere in the vicinity of $1/hour for my work.

I didn't do the project for the money. I did it because I wanted the thing I made. It is an entirely selfish project. That others find it useful is gratifying, but the motive wasn't profit, and to try to pivot to a profit motive would be nonsense to me. (Not to mention, I don't want to insult the developers of the game for which the project is an aid, by charging money off the back of their work.)

Some things just aren't businesses, you know?

Maybe monetizing it turns it into a job instead of the gift it was. Not everything has to be a transaction. If I volunteer my time or donate goods, it is a gift. I don't waste my time worrying about how my gift is monetized.

A pure simple idea well executed. Making money changes the relationship between us and Josh. If he is happy not to make money from the idea, that's great.

Well done Josh Wardle!

It reminds me of "Flappy Bird" and how the developer suddenly gave up everything. It was never said, but I suspected he was being extorted by some ranking (Vietnamese) government official.

Note: I'm not saying that the same thing is happening here.

I don't think it means much, TBH.

Different people have different situations and different priorities. Maybe he doesn't need money cause he's already rich? Maybe money isn't a particularly important objective for him? Maybe this is part of a long-term strategy to get recognized as a leading viral game dev?

Who cares? His situation his his situation. I neither think much better of him nor any worse of him depending on whether he monetizes or not. (Though there's something "romantic" about just creating a thing because you like it existing.)

> If someone is gonna inevitably end up benefiting from it, I'd rather the guy who made the original rather than an app cloning team in China or some bay area tech bro.

Why? If people want to play this on iOS, and the creator chooses not to provide it, or even makes an inferior version, why not let some other team create a "clone" of it that satisfies a need people have?

For a forum in which so many people hate IP and copyright, this is a funny sentiment :)

Deduce, a somewhat similar game has been available for ten years on iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/deduce/id351558195

Differences:

* Deduce uses 6-letter words * Deduce just tells you the number of correctly placed letters, it doesn't show you where they are or give you wrongly placed letters. * Deduce can be played as often as you like * You can take as many guesses as you need * Deduce is paid, but reasonable and one-time

I've played Wordle a couple times, and Deduce is much harder.

I think he sounds like a sane (and caring) human being. Greed is a flaw while empathy is a basic and sound human tendency.

I like his decision as it feels like it keeps him unencumbered with worry. And of course the game is delightful in its light and simple state. He doesn’t owe me an unmonetized game, so were he to change his mind, I wouldn’t be upset. Anklebiter copycats are always going to profit off someone’s work. If someone does make a derivative, monetized game that surpasses Wordle, I don’t see how monetizing and defending Wordle in the App Store would have meaningfully delayed that. Games are an aggressive market.

Right now Josh owns Wordle. He can do what he wants with it. No one has any claim over his time or his game. If he started monetizing it he would lose that. He'd also probably have to start supporting it, or defending it. I can see why he might not want to do that.

I created the first online texas holdem poker game (1992). I did not monetize and definitely regret it :)

I have missed a lot of opportunities in my life, but that is the biggest one.

The thing is monetization isn't just about making money. The money is used for improvement so when you monetize you can possibly create something even more amazing.

It's his choice, his decision to make and then live with whatever positive and/or negative consequences stem from it.

It's definitely not my place to judge that.

I don't know how much money he could expect to make? But obviously he values his principles and convictions higher than whatever amount he estimates he could make - thus he choose the option that provides the most value to him personally. I see no problem with that - it's totally within his rights to do whatever he wants with his game.

There are many possible reasons to not monetize something. Like for example, if you do something and enjoy doing it - and then start monetizing it, you will be exposed to certain pressures and responsibilities. For example, once you enter a seller/buyer relation-ship, you have to treat your fans as customers, which comes with a set of expectations that you can dodge as long as the app remains free. These new pressures and responsibilities turn a hobby into a profession - and can totally suck the fun out of it. If you want to keep your hobby a hobby that you do just for fun, without big commitments, then it's probably better to not monetize it.

At least not in a way that creates any responsibilities. Maybe there's a way to accept donations as pure gifts, without any strings attached. But many people would still feel like they had to give something in return, when receiving donation money. Like that little nagging thought, that they should put out an update, since many people donated for it... that sort of thing.

I feel that when people say "He's stupid for not taking the free money he could get!" - there might be a bit of jealousy behind that kind of statement. To someone who's trying hard to come up with a startup-idea that could generate money, it must of course feel maddening to see someone sitting on such an idea and not generating money from it. Makes you feel: "I wish I had a viral sensation app like that...", doesn't it? ;)

Apparently I live under a rock and am just hearing about this, had to google what it is. Its a neat game play loop of one word and one play per day and makes it not really copy-able. I mean yeah you could create a game to copy the concept but then if someone is playing with friends and they are playing a different game with a different word it kinda won't work.

If people play once per day and it takes a few minutes, _any_ amount of advertising would probably kill the game.

I think its awesome to not monetize something. Not everything needs to get on that hamster wheel. Whats next? multiplayer? private games? corporate events? More versions that are just like it - 6 character words, then 7, etc. Maybe the person just wanted to create a fun game. His best bet is a tip-jar, if Apple allows that.

Here is a NYT article about the creator - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/technology/wordle-word-ga...

Here's an article about the IP around Wordle [1]. In short, people cannot rip-off the 'look-and-feel' of Wordle, but they may work around it. The idea behind Wordle itself is, as the article points out, not original.

Hopefully it works out for the creator. Maybe helping to spread the word that 'app X is not the original Wordle' might help to give him more visibility among people playing the game.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/01/wordle-and-ip-law-wha...

I think it is positive example. Creation for sake of creation not to profit. I really wish more of Internet were to go back to that.

I'd probably attempt to monetize it, but it looks like he might be generating more buzz by not doing so, which is an interesting strategy.

He's going to be competing with clones that will flood the app stores either way, and users aren't going to necessarily know which one is the original (a past drama about 2048 comes to mind), so it's going to be down to whoever does the most marketing and manages to get featured in the app store, which is a lot of work and stress, and may not be worth it in the end.

I guess he decided that the risk/reward is not worth it.

It's a fun game and I like that you can only play once per day. I have to admit I was surprised to find that the game was free, especially after seeing the NY Times article with its narrative of "Wordle is a love story". I thought for sure that was some marketing story tossed together. I think it says a lot about me (and society!) that my first thought was he was selling it.

I think I'm also disappointed that numerous clones are coming out and they're all going to cash in on the craze and will probably eclipse the original.

What I in fact find to be the most compelling reason for strict (as in non-optional) monetization is that making a service without monetization can make it significantly better than other services, potentially increasing the quality of the experience of the consumer, but reducing the potential for any other developer of entertainment to profit, which, if they were in need, could significantly harm them.

The solution to this, of course, is to set up a (government) service to pay artists, such as game developers, for their work.

I still can't get over that I looked at the morning's news, saw something about this, recognized the same, and was like "I know that guy!"

Congrats on the viral hit and all the free press. Josh is a great guy.

I doubt there's much value here to squeeze. People lose interest in these things pretty fast. By the time it's productionized, it might be too late, and it ruined a fun hobby. The big value is he has a platform to launch something else, or enough attention to land a pretty good next gig.

I came up with this idea 10 years ago (not knowing Lingo or alike) and made a game "Isogram Puzzle[0]" with Flash. It's listed by some Flash game portals, never got popular.

Recently I ported it to Android, it has 23 active users at the moment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.com.gameva...

I agree with the general idea of sticking to your principles.

On the other hand, when it comes to your side projects, it truly is once in a lifetime that something becomes a global hit. A company or even a non-profit wouldn't hesitate to monetize this, and yet individual is the one who is given more scrutiny when they "sell out."

This simple little app being popular is something that could make a single developer financially independent (or just bring in a steady side income that gives you more career options). The author isn't exactly independently wealthy, he's still doing salaried work for a company. He is still (trapped, depending on your perspective) in the 9 to 5 like the rest of us.

It's not like Wordle is healthcare, something that is monetized that shouldn't be. It's just a game. A lot of people love it so much that they would gladly pay for some premium version of it.

Another way to keep the original product 100% free would be to open a store with merchandise or use something like Patreon.

I think of the Open Source movement not being about "freedom as in beer." It's 100% okay to sell open source software, but the point of open source is "freedom as in speech."

Monetizing is not the same as selling out or being predatory or immoral, because how you monetize is a very important detail.

Zach could stick to some kind of principles like those while still monetizing. Consider this as well: there's a good argument that not monetizing something as popular as Wordle is doing his family a disservice. All of our families, especially in a capitalist system to which we are subscribed with no opt-out, are basically little kingdoms that have to do their best to secure the stability of their future. Giving up a low-effort income source like this is kind of like turning away 10,000 soldiers who want to join your kingdom's army – it can only hurt you in the long run.

I never heard of Wordle until this post mentioned it so I'd say his decision is good advertising.

It is great and it is his choice.

But I also don't judge the copycats. Video games get copied all the time. In the beginning, we will get blatant clones which share the same ui and name.

Give it some time and we will see clones which add their own twist. The game will evolve.

If he doesn't want to ruin his personal experience of it too much, he could license the name and UI in some way to a developer whereby the developer gets some return, but the bulk goes to a foundation of his choosing. That way he doesn't get too embroiled in the work aspect. The clones are inevitable, so might as well head them off and continue the positive vibe.

(My wife and I play it, as does our 9yo. It's a morning (LOL, 00:01...) ritual of sorts, playing and then later discussing our tactics and the logic involved.

Not everything has to be about making money. I can only speak for myself. I too build stuff for free without expecting to get rich off it.

I work part-time, 32 hours a week, and I'm reasonably well paid. I don't want to run a business, and becoming financially independent doesn't particularly appeal to me. I've already tried not working. Seems like a great idea until you do. Just took a year off and lived off savings doing whatever the heck I felt like. Turns out that gets kinda boring in the long run.

I guess my question would be how the original creator monetizing his version would prevent copycats from making a windfall. If anything monetizing would remove a differentiating feature from Wordle, driving more traffic to copycats. The only way he can prevent copycats cashing in is to both monetize and use the revenue for marketing (and/or feature development). But then you have a business rather than a hobby, and it sounds like not a business he wants to be in.

I can't speak for the creator of Wordle, but some of us just want to put some nice things out into the world without the stinking pollution of advertising.

It’s a cool concept and nicely done but I’m not sure I see it as some kind of shining beacon of purity that must be protected from the dirty corruption of money. It’s a single-player word puzzle game, not a religious experience or scientific breakthrough or something.

He should monetize it, and donate the proceeds to a good charity if he really doesn’t need it and doesn’t think anyone in his immediate family or social circle needs help either.

I don’t think he’s foolish or wrong not to monetize, but at this point the opportunity cost of not doing it is truly enormous.

I understand he has a personal feeling that this was not meant to be monetized, and I can respect that.

But even so, it would make a lot of sense for him to put a tip jar on the site. He’d probably make $100,000 over the next weekend, and he’s certainly earned it.

Wordle 208 4/6

⬜⬜ ⬜⬜ ⬜⬜

Awesome game! Got it on the fourth try. Maybe the guy can put a donation box somewhere. I'd buy him a coffee.

Wordle is cool in its simplicity and focus on 'once per day' but the mechanic is literally a clone of Lingo already (the UK gameshow version at least, which I think is also a clone of the American Lingo gameshow).

You can see the official apps here: https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/lingo-official-mobile-game/id1... https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.twowayme...

There's tonnes of clones of those too in both app stores.

I also made a web based version recently, with unlimited words and choice of words lengths between 4-8 characters.

like art, not all software must be commercial

It seems like people want an app and not a website? You don't have to monetize apps. Someone here could volunteer to make it for the guy for free. If they felt strongly enough.

I am more surprised that there are no hundreds of clones around, it is so easy to do. Original is fully client-run, it is even has a dictionary unencrypted inside bundled js-file.

Its mastermind with letters... not original and not hard to implement. To monetize, the majority of work would be monetization stuff. That sounds like it wouldn't be fun.

Fun game, could be a nice interview test. Better than fizzbuzz imo

whenever i see some catchy game like this or the countless others like flappy bird or whatever, i think of that star trek episode and don't get involved

Just let the CIA implant words into the collective conscience via Wordle for mind control, and offer him a hammock in the Bahamas in return.

It's good that he wants to continue distributing it for free. If he wanted to make money off of it, that's also good too.

Good in him. Not everything is about money.

He'll get an offer he can't refuse from EA who will then ruin the game. Happened before, remember Popcap?

I hadn't thought anything of it. I'd rather he adds some (nice) ads to it rather than taking it down.

I hope the author at least trademarks 'Wordle' to be able to counter some of the copycats.

Some people have enough money and don't need more. It is hard to say what is the case.

He's a fool. It's just a game not some service to humanity. If anything it's a disservice to humanity by allowing people to waste time gaming for free.

On top of that someone else is already rushing to monetize it. (presumably)

There is nothing admirable about working for free while someone else takes your money.

Thanks hackernews for proving the user donation model doesn’t work

2048 didn’t teach anything (other than the powers of 2)

Isn't Worlde just an easier "Hangman"?

We could use less monetization (including via ads)...

What do I think of it?

Literally nothing.

He made a thing. People enjoy it.

It reminds me of the Flappy Bird guy who was making $50K a day or whatever. Its ridiculously privileged and only someone who's already well off would do something like that.

I mean, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on if it was like that guy who didn't patent that vaccine in order to make it more publicly available, but these are games.

He could add an ad platform or a simple sponsor without debilitating the product.

What is a „tech bro“?

It offends me, as someone who has never succeeded building something people want.

I say that a touch light hearted but it’s kinda true.

Money is a natural concept that roughly describes how much value you created.

Eschewing money on the outset seems taking the high-road, but from a value creation and compounding perspective, it is pretty dumb.

If you create value, you better capture the value that you have created, so that you can compound it and give back the goodness 10000x.

Gates / Buffett can deploy Billions to large-scale charity because they captured value.

Elon Musk can deploy his Billions to revolutionize exploration.

If you think Josh is good with no-money, imagine how much good he can do with $10,000,000,000 money.

Paradoxically, Nice people should build wealth. Else, someone else will build wealth and they will deploy it in a not-nice way

It's a mistake. It will be cloned and the original author will get nothing. This exact scenario played out with Flappy Bird.

It took this planet about 3.5 billion years for a conscious intelligence to emerge that was just barely curious enough to notice Wordle on Hackerne.ws a few minutes ago. That's me.

After reading about Wordle, this very being thinks that guy should take every bloody buck out of their pockets, without any remorse but pure heartless greed, and donate them to whomever or whatever he thinks needs it the most.

That'll teach them.

He should create a free Wordle app that lets you play once daily, and then a $9.99 in-app upgrade that lets you play unlimited, that pops up after you’ve completed the word of the day. The unlimited users should still see the word of the day whenever a new one is available (to keep sharing high). Best of both worlds.