Millionaire Changes

[Hastin]

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'246961\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 05:11 AM\']Maybe this has been addressed earlier in the thread, but: does anyone know how much the recent lawsuit between Celador and Disney influenced all these rule and cosmetic changes?[/quote]

None. 2WayTraffic bought the rights to Millionaire back in 2006.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'246980\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 11:39 AM\']Since the show was always heavily edited, they could have not shown the clock on screen which would have allowed them to edit it down much tighter.  Then, show the clock onscreen on the upper-tier questions for more drama.[/quote]Or you could do what England does. "Congratulations on winning £50,000. In addition to winning the Swap lifeline, you are released from the shackles of the slavering demon fang-pig that is the clock. For the remaining five questions you may take as long as you need." But they weren't going to do that. They wanted each game to take a predictable amount of time to play out.

[ethanmx2]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 09:52 AM\'][quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246957\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 04:21 AM\']Lifelines: 50:50; Ask the Audience; Phone a Friend (technically would be "Skype a Friend"; studio could install a cookie to track friends' computer during the taping to make sure the friend doesn't become Google a Friend); Switch the Question would be added before Question 3.[/quote]
And what would happen if the friend did try to use a search site? The show fills the offending computer with spam, malware, and/or viruses...and maybe even disables the user's anti-virus program/firewall for good measure?[/quote]

The idea behind the "Skype a Friend" concept was basically a way to keep the phone a friend lifeline on the show, but adapt it to what is now more modern technology. If the friend has a webcam, they could actually use that as part of the show as well, like they did for Ask the Expert. The idea of the tracking cookies is so that the producers still have control over the show, and the friend, can't be all whacked out, doing stupid things (granted that probably won't happen, but we also never thought someone on TPIR would bid $2 million), and most importantly, NOT searching for the answer during the lifeline. The basic idea for the Skype a Friend agreement would be that while the person is on standby during the show, he can research whatever he wants; it would still be the idea on how Phone a Friend works, they're not on the show until they're called. When the person is called up as the PAF, a notice will come up via skype from the producers telling them he's the phone a friend, and that he must to close out all internet browsers and any other research programs before they patch him through to the show. Once the producers have confirmed all that, they put him/her on. After the lifeline's over, all the producers can link up the person to a page or something where the cookie is deleted, and they're thanked for taking part in the show.

Now, IF somehow, the person is caught googling, the basic idea would be that tape stops, inform the player and the friend that he was caught googling, and pick another friend to call (would be a list of 5 again, and not 3). The offender, if it's the first time violating the rules, gets a warning; the second violation bans that person's IP address from the Phone a Friend servers or something like that. My knowledge of this kind of thing is very vague, so I'm almost sure I don't know what I'm talking about.

I know it's a really cockamamie idea, but if we really are going to bring back Phone A Friend, you have to adapt to the new technology and use it to ensure a fair game.

[Hastin]

[quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246994\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 12:46 PM\']The basic idea for the Skype a Friend agreement would be that while the person is on standby during the show, he can research whatever he wants; it would still be the idea on how Phone a Friend works, they're not on the show until they're called. When the person is called up as the PAF, a notice will come up via skype from the producers telling them he's the phone a friend, and that he must to close out all internet browsers and any other research programs before they patch him through to the show. Once the producers have confirmed all that, they put him/her on. After the lifeline's over, all the producers can link up the person to a page or something where the cookie is deleted, and they're thanked for taking part in the show.

Now, IF somehow, the person is caught googling, the basic idea would be that tape stops, inform the player and the friend that he was caught googling, and pick another friend to call (would be a list of 5 again, and not 3). The offender, if it's the first time violating the rules, gets a warning; the second violation bans that person's IP address from the Phone a Friend servers or something like that. My knowledge of this kind of thing is very vague, so I'm almost sure I don't know what I'm talking about.

I know it's a really cockamamie idea, but if we really are going to bring back Phone A Friend, you have to adapt to the new technology and use it to ensure a fair game.[/quote]

And what if there's another person in the room, also with a computer, that is patched through to the headset that the SAPper is using to search and find the answer. The SAPper could waffle and then get the clue from the other person.

Basically, any version of PAF without having them come to the studio turns into this.

[CeleTheRef]

WWTBAM restarted today in Italy, with only one difference from the original rules:  there is only 1 safe level but the contestant can choose where to place it before beginning the game.

[Loogaroo]

I really didn't mind them dropping PAF, honestly, and it was for this exact reason. I remember even earlier on when people would try to assemble groups of people in a room and have the PAF repeat the question to everyone else. They always ended up using about 26 seconds to go through the process. Drove me absolutely crazy.

[J.R.]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 11:52 AM\']And what would happen if the friend did try to use a search site? The show fills the offending computer with spam, malware, and/or viruses...and maybe even disables the user's anti-virus program/firewall for good measure?[/quote]
I've never seen someone try so hard to be funny as you.

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 11:52 AM\']Considering that we only heard about the changes after the lawsuit finished, I'd put the over/under at 65%. Personally, I take the over.[/quote]
Do you even know what Loog is talking about? Or is this another attempted to be "accepted" by offering a witty "I agree!" line?

Oh and...

None. 2WayTraffic bought the rights to Millionaire back in 2006.

[gameshowcrazy]

[quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246994\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 03:46 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 09:52 AM\'][quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246957\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 04:21 AM\']Lifelines: 50:50; Ask the Audience; Phone a Friend (technically would be "Skype a Friend"; studio could install a cookie to track friends' computer during the taping to make sure the friend doesn't become Google a Friend); Switch the Question would be added before Question 3.[/quote]
And what would happen if the friend did try to use a search site? The show fills the offending computer with spam, malware, and/or viruses...and maybe even disables the user's anti-virus program/firewall for good measure?[/quote]

The idea behind the "Skype a Friend" concept was basically a way to keep the phone a friend lifeline on the show, but adapt it to what is now more modern technology. If the friend has a webcam, they could actually use that as part of the show as well, like they did for Ask the Expert. The idea of the tracking cookies is so that the producers still have control over the show, and the friend, can't be all whacked out, doing stupid things (granted that probably won't happen, but we also never thought someone on TPIR would bid $2 million), and most importantly, NOT searching for the answer during the lifeline. The basic idea for the Skype a Friend agreement would be that while the person is on standby during the show, he can research whatever he wants; it would still be the idea on how Phone a Friend works, they're not on the show until they're called. When the person is called up as the PAF, a notice will come up via skype from the producers telling them he's the phone a friend, and that he must to close out all internet browsers and any other research programs before they patch him through to the show. Once the producers have confirmed all that, they put him/her on. After the lifeline's over, all the producers can link up the person to a page or something where the cookie is deleted, and they're thanked for taking part in the show.

Now, IF somehow, the person is caught googling, the basic idea would be that tape stops, inform the player and the friend that he was caught googling, and pick another friend to call (would be a list of 5 again, and not 3). The offender, if it's the first time violating the rules, gets a warning; the second violation bans that person's IP address from the Phone a Friend servers or something like that. My knowledge of this kind of thing is very vague, so I'm almost sure I don't know what I'm talking about.

I know it's a really cockamamie idea, but if we really are going to bring back Phone A Friend, you have to adapt to the new technology and use it to ensure a fair game.
[/quote]

Or you could just have off camera another friend with another computer feeding the person on camera the answer--go ahead, PROVE IT!

[Joe Mello]

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'246980\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 02:39 PM\']Since the show was always heavily edited, they could have not shown the clock on screen which would have allowed them to edit it down much tighter.[/quote]
But I was under the impression that the clock was done to eliminate said editing

[ethanmx2]

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'247016\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 04:17 PM\'][quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'246980\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 02:39 PM\']Since the show was always heavily edited, they could have not shown the clock on screen which would have allowed them to edit it down much tighter.[/quote]
But I was under the impression that the clock was done to eliminate said editing
[/quote]
And now look at what they're doing, going BACK to no clock and going back to heavy editing! Seems like the people behind the reigns of Millionaire are looking for a quick fix to their problems (IE: Tournament of 10, the clock, upping the money, and now this clusterbunch).

[JasonA1]

[quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246957\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 01:21 AM\']Millionaire has succumb to "It HAS to be broke, we HAVE to fix it" mentality when the games fundamentals had nothing wrong. The only problem was a dry spell in big money winners; which occurs in all shows.[/quote]

I have to imagine the people making decisions wouldn't be doing all this if there weren't a greater goal - like keeping the show on the air. I'm willing to bet the "classic" game was getting old with viewers. Even if it wasn't, clearly there were cost issues with studio time (hence the clock) and prize money (hence the difficulty) that were addressed.

What the new format rather cleverly does (as Mello pointed out) is break up the monotony. Unless there's sudden renewed financial interest in the contestants' well being (i.e. the prize budget), naturally they'll be walking/losing around the same point. But now they're going to do so in a game that's ever-changing. It's one of the things that keeps TPIR appealing to me; I imagine the variety could help attract some viewers. "Classic Millionaire" has been around long enough for the people interested in it to see it, IMO.

Whereas before, I would resume yawning when WWTBAM came back in the fall, I'll actually tune in this year to see how these changes play out on the air. Your doom-and-gloom about the show having "DOND-itis" is quite a big supposition to make based on a Flash game. If it's going to resemble that game at all, there might be a small animation to ramp up the drama in seeing what the question's worth. Look out game show police.

-Jason

[WarioBarker]

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'247002\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 05:07 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 11:52 AM\']And what would happen if the friend did try to use a search site? The show fills the offending computer with spam, malware, and/or viruses...and maybe even disables the user's anti-virus program/firewall for good measure?[/quote]I've never seen someone try so hard to be funny as you.[/quote]
One problem -- I wasn't trying to be funny. I wasn't even making a joke. I was being dead serious.

[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'247002\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 05:07 PM\'][quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'246971\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 11:52 AM\']Considering that we only heard about the changes after the lawsuit finished, I'd put the over/under at 65%. Personally, I take the over.[/quote]Do you even know what Loog is talking about? Or is this another attempted to be "accepted" by offering a witty "I agree!" line?

Oh and...

None. 2WayTraffic bought the rights to Millionaire back in 2006.

[/quote]
Loog is referring to the July verdict in Celador's favor to the tune of $270 Million. I remember reading about it back when the news broke, and a thought had brewed in my mind that somebody in a position of power would try to make the show cheaper and/or harder so Disney could make back its lost money. The new format (which, to my surprise, I am warming up to), however, seems intent on giving away more.

Again, I was being dead serious.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'ethanmx2\' post=\'246957\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 04:21 AM\']Quite frankly, Millionaire has succumb to "It HAS to be broke, we HAVE to fix it" mentality when the games fundamentals had nothing wrong. The only problem was a dry spell in big money winners; which occurs in all shows.
- - -
OK, now that that's done and out of the way, I'll let the arguments over the new season continue. I will say this: I'll give the show a chance, but as far as I know, Millionaire as we've known it for over 10 years, is done.[/quote]
I've loved Millionaire since Day One, but on its face, the format is no that strong, and never has been.

Answer 15 multiple-choice questions. Okay, even when you add a potential seven-figure jackpot, it's still a pedestrian game. The lifelines help spruce things up. So does the Fastest Finger. The original phone game helped give the show an everyman/woman feel (save for the "middle-aged white guy" non-controversy).

What I'm saying is, the format's never been strong to begin with, so they have to find a way to jazz it up. Some of their experiments worked (new lifelines), some didn't (the tournament). This is a slightly larger change, but I still don't see it as the death knell, esp. after the online game gave me a good idea.

[chad1m]

[quote name=\'Dan88\' post=\'247025\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 08:49 PM\']I wasn't even making a joke. I was being dead serious.[/quote]That's the scary part.

I realized earlier that when I watched the past seasons via DVR (since I usually had school during the airing time), I would fast forward through most contestant introductions and the first five questions since, you know, nothing "interesting" usually happened then. With the new format, every question has a potential importance so there's nothing to skip or drudge through now.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'246849\' date=\'Sep 4 2010, 06:29 PM\']OK, I was iffy on the changes up to this point, but this settles it. This game is effed in the bee.[/quote]Fricasseed in the boundary?


[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'246912\' date=\'Sep 5 2010, 04:25 PM\']You are free to walk after seeing your first Classic Millionaire question with the contents of your bank. Period.[/quote]I completely see Tim's point: if I'm the contestant, I want my safety net to be whatever I carried into Original Recipe. But if I'm the show, and I did the math and realized that you can't make it to Original Recipe with less than $27,000; and frequently more, then I want the safety net to be $25,000.


[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'247001\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 01:33 PM\']I really didn't mind them dropping PAF, honestly, and it was for this exact reason. I remember even earlier on when people would try to assemble groups of people in a room and have the PAF repeat the question to everyone else. They always ended up using about 26 seconds to go through the process. Drove me absolutely crazy.[/quote]It drives me batty when people don't have anti-virus software on their computer and then complain when things go horribly wrong. But they get to.

Any one of us could round up a bundle of venture capital, start up a TV network in the fashion of Revision3 and have game shows that are chockablock with strategy, interesting decisions and tension that you can't believe and for realistic problems. And when you do, you get to set the rules. Right now, you get to decide whether to watch or not.


[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'247026\' date=\'Sep 6 2010, 05:56 PM\']What I'm saying is, the format's never been strong to begin with, so they have to find a way to jazz it up.[/quote]The one change that I completely was in the tank for was the growing jackpot.