675. Has the New York Times Become a Games Company? | Freakonomics Radio

The podcast episode delves into the multifaceted world of games, exploring their significance from childhood to adulthood, their role in culture, and their surprising integration into mainstream media, particularly the New York Times. The discussion begins by highlighting the paradox of play: a universal childhood activity seen as vital for development, yet often dismissed as frivolous in adulthood. Social scientists affirm play’s benefits for cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being. Bernard Suits’ definition of a game as the "voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles" is presented as a parallel to life itself, with both involving constraints, luck, uncertainty, limited information, risk-reward trade-offs, and pressure. Games serve diverse functions, acting as connections, laboratories, or escapes, and are a significant leisure activity, second only to watching TV, which itself often involves observing games (live sports). Eric Zimmerman, a game designer and professor at NYU’s Game Center, shares his early experiences with games, from logical deduction games with his father to physical play like wrestling and dirt bike races. He even recounts designing a rudimentary game about the digestive system in fifth grade. When asked about influential games, Zimmerman points to Dungeons and Dragons as a cornerstone of contemporary game culture, influencing concepts like player classes, levels, and experience points. He also cites Flip 7 as an example of a simple, elegant party game. Zimmerman explains that universities like NYU offer game design programs due to capitalist drivers and student demand, noting a cultural shift where games, once considered childish and violent, are now accepted as a legitimate field of study. He himself transitioned from art school, where the focus was on pure visual qualities, to game design, embracing both the formal structures of games (like line, color, and composition in art) and the postmodern, culturally critical aspects of art. He emphasizes that game designers are primarily creators of rules, shaping the structure of the player experience rather than just the aesthetics or programming. A game is defined as existing at the intersection of mathematics, logic, and formal structures, and human experience, emotion, and play. The "willful collegial adoption of random-seeming or crazy-seeming rules" is presented as a key characteristic, creating a new space where players can embody different versions of themselves and become lost in the experience. This immersion isn't about visual realism but about engaging with the social, cognitive, psychological, and strategic dimensions of the game. Games, Zimmerman argues, create meaning by transforming objects like a chessboard into a dynamic space of turns, decisions, and interactions. The concept of the "Ludic Century" is introduced, suggesting that the 21st century is defined by playfulness, in contrast to the 20th century’s dominance of the moving image. The pervasiveness of digital technology and networked information has shifted how we work, learn, socialize, and consume media. Unlike the static, expert-driven encyclopedia model of the 20th century, 21st-century information sources like Wikipedia are dynamic, community-driven, and constantly evolving. Games, as ancient forms of human expression based on rule-based systems, offer a lens through which to understand this shift. The ludic century, Zimmerman posits, points towards a playful future where beauty can emerge from collective play, not just authorial creation. The commercial success of the video game market, now exceeding the movie and music industries combined, is presented as evidence of this ludic shift. This trend has led industries outside of gaming to try and capitalize on its momentum. The New York Times, traditionally a news-gathering organization, is highlighted as a prime example. While historically known for its serious journalism and even disdain for pastimes like crossword puzzles, the Times has fully embraced games, transforming its business model. Alex Hardman, Chief Product Officer at the New York Times, recounts the company's journey. Initially a print-first, ad-first business with limited digital subscribers and a shrinking newsroom, the Times faced significant challenges due to the decline of traditional advertising revenue and the rise of digital platforms. The advent of Craigslist disrupted classifieds, and search and social media changed how audiences were discovered. Many news organizations initially unbundled content and chased traffic, but the Times, in 2015, pivoted to a subscription-first, destination-first strategy, prioritizing direct relationships with readers. The Times launched its digital subscription model in 2011, anticipating the need for a market for paid, high-quality journalism. News remains the core of their business, acting as the "sun" around which other offerings, including games, cooking, and sports, orbit. Games, however, are becoming increasingly significant. The Times, which published its first crossword in 1942 as a morale booster during World War II, now sees its games played billions of times annually. Hardman emphasizes that the Times' games are designed to offer challenge, wit, and cultural context, aiming for "time well spent" rather than exploitative engagement. They are not attempting to create addictive experiences but rather elegant, well-designed games that respect the player. The acquisition of Wordle is discussed as a pivotal moment. Josh Wardle, its creator, developed the game for friends and family, and its viral sharing mechanism, the emoji squares, propelled its popularity. The New York Times, recognizing its potential and its alignment with the Times' brand, acquired Wordle for a reported low seven figures, bringing in tens of millions of new users. Wordle is now being developed into a TV show. Jonathan Knight, SVP and General Manager for New York Times Games, who previously worked at Zynga on games like Farmville and Words with Friends, believes everyone is a gamer. He explains the process of game development at the Times involves nurturing creativity, prototyping, user testing, and analyzing metrics like Day 1, Day 7, and Day 30 retention. While fun and a sense of accomplishment are key, the "right kind of solve"—feeling like you've solved something worthwhile—is crucial. The Times tests new games in Canada before wider release, as Canadian user behavior mirrors that of US users. Knight discusses the trade-off between game difficulty and retention. A game with a low solve rate and poor retention was made easier but still failed. Conversely, "Connections," a logic puzzle, has a lower solve rate but excellent retention because the experience of playing it, even without solving, is satisfying and encourages a return. Wordle, with its high solve rate, also contributes to positive feelings. The Times emphasizes human-made puzzles, believing consumers can discern machine-generated content. The conversations and debates around the daily Wordle word, or the inclusion of double letters, highlight the human element and the engagement it fosters. Regarding AI, the Times is doubling down on human-made puzzles, seeing value in the care and attention that goes into them. The complexity of games like Connections, which even AI models struggle to solve, underscores their unique human design. The satisfaction of beating a New York Times puzzle comes from outsmarting a human creator. The success of the New York Times' games has inspired other media outlets like The New Yorker and The Atlantic to develop their own game divisions. However, Zimmerman cautions against the commercial game industry's trend of excessive monetization and player exploitation, referencing the rise and fall of Facebook games like Farmville. He advocates for building long-lasting relationships with players based on genuine engagement rather than short-term gains. Knight believes games are not a fad for the Times, citing the resilience of Wordle and the enduring desire for puzzles. Innovation and new, clever puzzles are key to energizing existing players, re-engaging lapsed users, and attracting new audiences. The Times prioritizes "time well spent," respecting user agency and not measuring engagement by minutes spent in the app. Streaks are maintained strictly, with no option to pay to preserve them, reflecting the company's ethos. Crossplay, the Times' first multiplayer game, has driven new user registrations and boasts excellent retention, despite being a take on Scrabble. The Times offers a "game review" feature powered by a "crossbot" to help players analyze their moves and improve, emphasizing improvement over mere engagement. Zimmerman reiterates that games offer intrinsic value, akin to music or art, and their pro-social aspects, like agreed-upon rules and the social situations they create, are important. However, he is critical of "gamification," which he sees as stripping away the soul of play—creative problem-solving and productive conflict—while retaining superficial elements like points and levels. He likens it to reducing food to mere nutrition. Every design, he argues, implies a model of what it means to be human, and the values embedded in game design reflect a deep consideration of players and what is encouraged from them. The "furious contention" and the "anguish and pain of striving and winning and losing" can be beautiful aspects of games. The episode concludes with a reminder that games, like any form of expression, can be used for various purposes, from advertising to inspiration, and that the New York Times is committed to creating beautiful, human-made content. The hosts invite listeners to share what games they find beautiful, and announce upcoming episodes on the topic.