Author Topic: More Price is Right Updates (Read 17259 times)

Neumms · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2010, 10:46:21 AM »

Bleech to Ten Chances. Looks crummy. I'm not sure why it used to have the lattice-red-green motif, but it looked different from any other game. This just looks boring, like the new Most Expensive set-up.

Another gripe with this and Temptation: Both had raised boards, sort of on stilts, and you could see under them. Then at some point they put a painted board there to block the view. That's fine, I guess, but if they're going to the trouble to make a new board, then they should design it differently, not with legs with a board stuck between them.

Pay the Rent looks good, though, except for the Ariel font on the LCDs.

Neumms · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2010, 10:58:17 AM »

Just noticed something on the new 10 Chances board--there's more room to the right of the 10th chance than there is on the left of the first. Might they be preparing to add an 11th Chance?

bscripps · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2010, 12:30:38 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'246659\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 10:58 AM\']Just noticed something on the new 10 Chances board--there's more room to the right of the 10th chance than there is on the left of the first. Might they be preparing to add an 11th Chance?[/quote]
That space has always been there, to accommodate the occasional player who can't manage to get the first two prices in ten chances; if prize #2 has to go to the tenth position, the car has to go somewhere.

RyanCDN · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2010, 12:44:03 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246651\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 12:48 AM\']I think Plinko's fine in that regard. Where the lower amounts fail is Punch a Bunch, where $1,000 hardly stops anybody anymore.

-Jason[/quote]

I Agree that the $100 space is rather cheesy, given there are two -0- slots - so why not bump up that lower prize a little.

The old risk-reward issue indeed with PaB - it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.

-Ryan

mparrish11 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2010, 01:43:57 PM »

It's about time Ten Chances got an update! I was beginning to wonder if or when it was going to get a makeover. Plinko...meh.....not enough to get excited about, for me (you're mileage may vary). From what I've seen of Pay the Rent, I'm excited and can't wait to see it in action. BTW...nice re-use of the MDS sign! :-)

Mike Richards, please--get back BEHIND the camera, where the Producer belongs.

I just got done reading the thread at G-R, and it reminds me why I don't go there anymore. 'Nuff said.

clemon79 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 01, 2010, 02:06:39 PM »

[quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:44 AM\']it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]
Only if you are applying pot odds. Which you can't.

Mr. Armadillo · « **Reply #21 on:** September 01, 2010, 03:03:30 PM »

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'246657\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 09:46 AM\']Bleech to Ten Chances. Looks crummy. I'm not sure why it used to have the lattice-red-green motif, but it looked different from any other game.[/quote]
You say this like it's a good thing.

JayDLewis · « **Reply #22 on:** September 01, 2010, 03:37:59 PM »

[quote name=\'RyanCDN\' post=\'246664\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 11:44 AM\']The old risk-reward issue indeed with PaB - it is a good deal to risk $1,000 for a chance at $10K or $25K.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you my transplanted fellow Canadian.

If you hit a $1,000 slip, always stop as there are always ~40 amounts less than $1K to "win."

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 01, 2010, 04:01:01 PM »

[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' post=\'246654\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 02:39 AM\']10 Chances: A very nice update. Blue's my favoritte coloe so this change will help.[/quote]Help what? The game won't be any easier.

/brick wall, I know.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #24 on:** September 01, 2010, 07:47:22 PM »

Am I the only one who would've liked to see Ten Chances played on a Smartboard?

The changes are nice, btw.

chris319 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 01, 2010, 10:18:47 PM »

For Plinko's new dollar amounts I was prepared to see:

$0
$5
$10
$0
$10,000
$0
$10
$5
$0

It would be consistent with the setups of late.

TLEberle · « **Reply #26 on:** September 01, 2010, 11:55:50 PM »

[quote name=\'Loogaroo\' post=\'246650\' date=\'Aug 31 2010, 10:45 PM\']I still don't understand why Plinko doesn't get a long-overdue payout bump. Not in the center slot, mind you, but the other ones - $100 slots on the outside are about as outdated as $5 a point on Feud.[/quote]And it wouldn't have been so obvious had the top prize been increased to $10,000 each. The problem I have with Plinko isn't so much than you can win a few hundred dollars--that's possible with just a bad drop-- but when the producers are picking items deliberately so that the contestant will not get to play your "marquee game". There are all sorts of clever things that you can do to tart up the game, but when the producers decide that you're not going to get to play because they spent the budget elsewhere, I stop caring.

[quote name=\'mparrish11\' post=\'246665\' date=\'Sep 1 2010, 10:43 AM\']From what I've seen of Pay the Rent, I'm excited and can't wait to see it in action.[/quote]I will bet cash on the line that the money grows $1,000-$5,000-$100,000 or some such. They play Golden Road all of three times last year, for a game that is really a one-in-twelve crapshoot to win the big prize. Does anyone really think that 1) the player has a snowball's chance at the top money or 2) that the consolation money is going to rival the top prize of Grand Game, Half-Assed or Punch-a-Bunch?

TimK2003 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 02, 2010, 10:50:37 AM »

Dunno why, but the old Ten Chances board always used to remind me of a tote board at a horse track -- we'll it DID premiere during or shortly after the lattice-happy Celebrity Sweepstakes run.

And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay, if only for the reason to have a possibility of a contestant to get on stage and win absolutely nothing, which can still happen if said Plinko contestant can whiff on all 4 prizes and land the freebie chip into the $0 space.

I think all the pricing games need to have the possibility that every contestant could walk off the stage winning nothing but their IUFB. I know that even Money Game can never have a bona-fide loss because every contestant comes out of the game at least $100 richer. But even those games could theoretically be tweaked to where a contestant has to beat some sort of odds (Double Prices) or has to make some sort of decision that puts into risk what they may automatically win at the start (Temptation) in order to win something on stage.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 02, 2010, 01:51:03 PM »

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay[/quote]

The earlier contention was about the $100 slots.

[quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']I think all the pricing games need to have the possibility that every contestant could walk off the stage winning nothing but their IUFB. I know that even Money Game can never have a bona-fide loss because every contestant comes out of the game at least $100 richer. But even those games could theoretically be tweaked[/quote]

Changes like that would certainly make better games. I've said before that making the last roll in Let Em Roll all or nothing for the car would eliminate the lack of risk in going on, when you can easily roll up $2,000 for losing.

But, would doing things like that make the show more fun to watch? You could use that argument in the inverse, asking why Rat Race needs more than the car at stake. We only have one playing to go on, but the audience deflated when the car was lost. Does it generate any additional reaction (and to less tangible extension, ratings & revenue) for the contestant to have missed the car, but still win a $750 pair of headphones?

So going back: does it help the quality of the show to suddenly take away the $100-$300 a Money Game loser gets, or the less than ten an Any Number loser gets?

-Jason

TimK2003 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 02, 2010, 03:33:04 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'246700\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 11:51 AM\'][quote name=\'TimK2003\' post=\'246699\' date=\'Sep 2 2010, 07:50 AM\']And as far as the Plinko $0 money slots go, I say they should stay[/quote]

The earlier contention was about the $100 slots.
[/quote]

I thought there was at least one post which wanted to abolish the $0 slots altogether. My bad.

Quote

So going back: does it help the quality of the show to suddenly take away the $100-$300 a Money Game loser gets, or the less than ten an Any Number loser gets?

I just used MG as an example of some of the games that are considered no-lose games. Back in the 70's, getting $100-200 in Money Game as a consolation for not winning the car would be considered a sizable secondary win (compared to a $4,000 car) for really doing nothing but picking numbers. Nowadays, the same consolation amounts (winning $200 v $18,000) in MG could now allow it to be grouped with Grand Game (winning only $10 or $100) or Any Number (winning between $0.12 and $9.87) as not necessarily "losses" but rather "klunk" money -- just as bad as not winning anything.

I am just not in favor of games that could guarantee you enough money right up front so, when paired with your IUFB, you can slide into the 3rd slot on the Big Wheel or the 1st slot in the Showcase simply by default when up to 5 other players have to take risks or have to beat odds to try to earn those same positions. Nowadays, I really don't see a guaranteed $100-200 pricing game making much of a difference between the top money winners...I just think you need to actually work for anything more than $250 offered on stage.