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.
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?
Also, wordle fits perfectly with the rest of NYT’s puzzle games. Honestly, if I made wordle, I’d be honored to have my game land there, aside from the cool million(s).
> As of May 2014, QuizUp had 20 million users and had raised over $26 million from venture capital investments.
I think these type of Trivia games have just one option, Cash it at the peak of the fad or wait till it gets replaced by another fad.
Considering NYT has dedicated subscribers for it's puzzle games, I think getting Wordle in it is a smart choice and perhaps may be they could turn it around profitably; Even if they don't I'm happy for Josh Wardle.
We need more such successful indie exit stories like this, When there's someone to buy Facebook's Liberapay and IBM's Watson then we need not be too critical about acquisition of a product loved by millions.
So it makes sense for that to be it's new home. I'm disappointed I may have to start paying for it, but it's given me a lot of fun.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/wordle-new-yo...
P.S. This is assuming the user base comprises avid daily players (which seems true.) They would definitely get their money's worth.
So up to $3.65 / year for avid users.
> now millions play the game daily
So a multiple of $3.65m a year! Payday without any need for third party motivations creeping in.
Heck, we’re already dealing with cookie prompts all over the web; if adding a “$0.01 per article” prompt means we can get rid of the ads and thus get rid of the cookie prompt, it’s not even a net loss for usability
People like creating, inventing, playing, when they are secure and happy. Most people don’t live in that state though.
Not sure how we get there though.
The fact it became really popular and he could then be financially rewarded for something he did anyway is just the icing on the cake.
Is this aspirational and unrealistic? Absolutely! I'm not claiming this is something we can do today, but I think it's good to think about where we might like to go.
Oh, were these things supposed to materialize for me for free with no effort on my part? Well, I suppose there's always prison, but I'd rather not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art...
The OP can also lament something without there being an alternative.