By Sophia Aurang
For years, the New York Times Mini Crossword was one of the best brain games available, becoming more fun each day as it tested vocabulary skills and encouraged players to beat their best times, but recently the game disappeared from the Times’s assortment of free games, leaving many longtime users feeling its absence from their daily routines and prompting the argument that, if the New York Times wants to maintain its audience, it needs to bring back the Mini Crossword. The best part of the Mini was its accessibility; the full crossword can be overwhelming and is locked behind a paywall, but anyone could try the Mini, which featured topics ranging from pop culture to obscure slang, making its audience incredibly broad. The subscription structure adds to the frustration, as the welcome offer for an all‑access subscription is cheaper per week than the Games‑only subscription at $1 versus $1.50, and even lesser‑known games like Tiles have been placed behind a subscription, removing the pleasure of a quick daily win and making it unreasonable to charge for a simple five‑by‑five puzzle. Considering the Times already offers a larger, more complex daily crossword that many are willing to pay for, removing the Mini makes little sense. From a business standpoint, the decision is even more puzzling, as the Mini kept users opening the app daily and often led them to explore other games like Wordle and Connections; for many new subscribers, it was the first puzzle they tried, and removing it risks lowering engagement. Alternatives also fall short—the LA Times mini crossword is less enjoyable, with more obscure topics that often require hints or autocheck, which diminishes the fun, and switching between multiple websites for daily puzzles is far less convenient than having everything in one place. The Mini Crossword may be small, but its absence is significant, and bringing it back would benefit both players and the Times, proving that the company values the community that helped make its games popular; by removing it, the Times ultimately harms itself more than it benefits.
Photo By The Guardian