Anything that takes away from everyone getting the same word on the same day will absolutely nuke its popularity. There's really nothing novel about the game to make it popular other than that. Don't get me wrong, it's fun and well implemented, but the concept existed before Wordle. What makes Wordle successful is how dirt-simple it is to share your results on any medium.
Only variations the TV show has is the 6 word version on Saturday and some comedians made a sketch with a 19 letter version: words like "Marshallplanachtige" [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CR1v1fKW0
EDIT: of course there's also this classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7qxpAUKy4c in which some dude tries to not say a word he probably saw in a porno but does have to say it of course so mispronounces.
Not really true as it is, being based on local time. For example, there's only a one hour period each day where someone in New Zealand and someone in Hawaii have the same word.
Fortunatly Wordle clearly signals it with a countdown timer, instead of leaving it up to the reader to figure out what "day" they mean like other daily puzzle sites or people on the internet in general.
I'm trying to keep my mind open to possibility?
GP stated “NYT can only ruin wordle”. I said that’s small minded.
He may be right! It’s the certainty that is so anti-hacker! Just because you like something doesn’t mean it can’t be improved!
Isn’t that literally what hacking is?!?!
What else is there? People don't enjoy the game because of logic and reason, they enjoy it because of emotion: it's fun, you get a feeling of accomplishment when you win, when you lose, you feel driven to do better tomorrow, etc.
It's all very very simple, and that's what's great about it.
Please stop with the "that's anti-hacker" rhetoric. That's the kind of talk designed to shut down discussion. I think it's only natural to be cynical of a big corporation like NYT buying up a small one-person creation. Wordle is great as it is. Maybe there are ways to improve it, but I doubt NYT can do anything the original developer can do, at least not without completely changing the game into something it's not.
>There is objectively nothing that NYT could add to the game to make it more interesting. It can only make it worse.
What discussion did THAT open?
EDIT: And I'm glad you're expressing opinions! That's the point of discourse. GP was doing something different and just because you agree with GP's opinion doesn't mean that his rhetorical choices are sound!
My point is that, while is nice for the original creator that he could find someone to give that much money for the game, this valuation is only based on how much rent the NYT might be able to extract from it, not from the value of the creation itself. And that tells me that as an user I have nothing to benefit from this acquisition.
You may be right! But what’s your evidence for “NYT is into seeking rent”?
Aside from the eyeballs, please tell me what value is there in the wordle property to justify buying it for millions of dollars?
If the game itself was using interesting closed technology or had any other kind of intellectual property attached to it, then maybe it could be justified. But nobody spends that amount of money if they are not looking for ways to make it back manifold.
EDIT: or are you implying that NYT should have just copied it, rather than rewarding the creator?
> Are you implying that NYT should have just copied it, rather than rewarding the creator?
I am not implying anything. I am stating that the only thing that the NYT (or anyone else really) would be interested in buying from wordle is the user base, they made an investment and they will look for ways to get their money back.
Everything else is easy to replicate. It's hard to think of a way where they can get their money back that doesn't destroy or puts a limit on the things that make it so appealing to people.
If you think that any corporation has any interest of giving away millions of dollars to someone as "reward", I have a bridge to sell you.
They do so much stupid stuff in the crossword (REBUS, missing letters, un-ordered phrases)
As for Craigslist, I suspect there's not "a reason". I imagine it's a lot of different, complex reasons.
Also one could argue the root cause of those many, complex reasons is under-investment in R&D based in the assumption “the current product is perfect”
5 letters gives enough options without requiring the player to have access to a lot of guesses to have any hope of winning, and gives the game a short playtime.
It's built to be quick to play. You can play it on a commute, or dip in a few times throughout the day.
You wouldn't have that progress visible to players with a larger problem space. Tangentially, you'd also wind up having to lean more on "technical" (as in scoped to a particular domain, not technological) language in order to fill the list. That limits access to those outside of that field of study.