Prioritize Personal Connection over Profits: Don’t Put Wordle Behind a Paywall

A screenshot of Wordle #227, from Feb. 1 2022. Credit: Alexis Colucci '23/Wordle

What started as a modern love story has unfortunately evolved into yet another way for businesses to monetize human life. Initially created for his wife Palak Shah, digital creator Josh Wardle attempted to design a word game for him and his partner to solve after they became enthralled with the New York Times Spelling Bee and crossword puzzles, which he coined “Wordle” as a play off of his last name. 

As the game gained traction among his family members, Wardle decided to release the site in November 2021, at which the site saw 90 players. As of last week, Wordle now has over 3 million daily players. The premise is simple: try to guess a five-letter word in six tries by using other five-letter words, in addition to letter tiles that change color depending on their relation to the day’s word. If the word the player guesses contains any letters that are also in the day’s word, or in the same position they were entered as in the day’s word, they will turn yellow or green respectively, to alert users they are getting closer to solving the puzzle.

Because of Wordle’s simple, accessible and addictive nature, it is no surprise that the site has continued to gain notoriety. While the number of Tweets involving the word “Wordle” has been increasing on average about 26% per day, players have not been alone in praising the app’s success. On Jan. 31, the New York Times (NYT) announced that it too saw potential in Wordle, and had purchased the game for "an undisclosed price in the low seven figures.”

There are certainly benefits to news conglomerate NYT purchasing Wordle, one being that Wardle will finally receive his deserved compensation for the success of the site. In addition, the NYT will likely commission Wardle to design other games, which its website states are “created and curated by in-house experts.” Besides providing Wardle with work, this partnership should hopefully provide Wardle assistance in maintaining the site going forward, which he has traditionally done himself. But, NYT’s history of paid content has users worrying that one major drawback outweighs all benefits: the acquisition might allow NYT to put Wordle behind a paywall. 

Before enacting a paywall that prevents hundreds of thousands of users from playing, I implore the NYT to consider other means to compensate Wardle and promote its own brand of word games, such as implementing ads within the site or charging for additional game play beyond the single Wordle a day. Currently, Wordle is web-based, free and intuitive. If the NYT begins charging users for it, the app will swiftly decline in popularity due to a common aversion to paid apps and services. In addition to the frustrating realization that businesses will continue to monetize anything they can, despite their already adequate profit, charging users to play Wordle will violate the low-maintenance and casual ideals from which Wardle designed the site.

“I think people kind of appreciate that there's this thing online that's just fun," Wardle said. “It's not trying to do anything shady with your data or your eyeballs. It's just a game that's fun."

By locking Wordle behind a paywall, the NYT will make this ‘fun’ exclusive – and profit on something created from and for human connection under its brand name. Not only has Wordle been so accessible because it is free, but its content is also more user-friendly and general knowledge than other Internet word games. Out of the 2,500 approved Wardle words, these words are often well-known and require a mixture of luck and skill to solve, with Shah having tested the game before its release. This is unlike the Times’ crossword, which is notoriously long, difficult and requires extensive knowledge to solve. Since the NYT has acquired Wordle, there is fear that they will reduce the accessibility of the app by marketing it with its suite of existing games including the Crossword. Not everything has to be fiscally-oriented to be successful, and by charging users for Wordle, the NYT will prioritize profit over people. 

Charging users to play Wordle in the future will also destroy the sense of community the site has created. By only posting one puzzle a day, Wardle has utilized the concept of scarcity to encourage users to return and build a sense of accomplishment in those who solved the day’s puzzle. As an example, users often tweet Wordle-generated-boards with emojis representing the guesses the user made toward the Wordle with the colored letters. Since many use this feature to boast about completing the day’s Wordle, the site also began to help grow a community. It is evident that the community exists because of the unwritten rules not to spoil the day’s Wordle for others, and instead post the emoji board. In addition, users also dedicate forums, chat rooms and message boards on various social media to developing Wordle strategies through collaboration. This is unlike any other online site in a way that fuses human connection with a digital platform and promotes collaboration to achieve success, and why limiting users from playing will hinder it.

If the NYT’s acquisition results in a firewall or altered gameplay, there is a chance that this will no longer be the case. By allowing family, friends, co-workers and strangers on the internet to collaborate and discuss the day’s puzzle, this game builds community through something that we all can participate in. Monetizing this community for the profit of an already multibillion-dollar business just to draw attention to its own brand of games is not only unnecessary, but also deplorable. As a frequent solver of the Crossword and now Wordle, I hope that the NYT can fund Wardle and acquire Wordle without stealing the game’s spirit, which is what distinguishes it. 

“The game has done what so few games have done — it has captured our collective imagination and brought us all a little closer together,” said Jonathan Knight, the general manager of games at the NYT.

Clearly, the NYT sees this potential for socialization and it is now their responsibility to listen to the people. Whether or not the NYT actually changes Wordle or its capabilities as it has done with games in the past to promote a sense of elitism, this situation encourages us as a society to think deeply about what we like so much about Wordle and then fight to protect it from profit.