It was a cheap game for the NYTimes to purchase (low 7-figures so probably $1-4M), it's something that people love, and it'll attract a lot of new people to the NYTimes Games brand. For now, that's probably enough. They threw a few million at someone that created something that lots of people loved and it gives the game the institutional backing to continue on indefinitely. I'm not saying that the guy wouldn't have continued Wordle, but he was one person who might get hit by a bus.

In the long run, the NYTimes has so many options - and if they decide to do nothing other than continue a game people love, it's not like a couple million is an insane sum for them to "waste" on something that puts their brand in front of so many people every day.

1) It makes people aware that the NYTimes has lots of different word game options. 2) It makes people think of the NYTimes a lot. 3) They could put a link to a single story on the page. 4) They could offer an up-sell to a SuperWordle or something as part of their games package that might offer slightly different puzzles (sure, you can get Wordle clones all over the web, but a lot of people might not care about $3-4/mo for an NYTimes Games subscription). 5) Wordle could become premium in the future - or maybe just the Sunday edition is premium.

There are so many options. Some might be less user-friendly, but there are a lot of user-friendly options. When you buy something for cheap, you don't need to leverage it a lot to justify the purchase.

New York Times Games has its own app with various word related daily puzzles. People pay a subscription fee to be able to play the back catalog of crossword for example.

It is a pretty natural and obvious fit.

Just as Atlassian bought Trello to hedge their dominant position in Kanban board hosting, NYT bought Wordle to hedge their dominant position as daily-word-puzzle purveyors.

You are going to their website, and they will soon start upselling you their games subscription.