Half Off Debut

[Mario500]

Quoting my reaction/comments on Half Off's first playing:

Gentleman and ladies, Half Off has arrived! This all-new Pricing Game features rows of boxes, but only one contains the grand prize of $10,000 in cash. In order for a contestant, specifically Melissa to find that special box without the high chance of losing, she must pick at least 3 items with a price half its original retail price. Why? Because if she picks at least 1 half priced item, half of the boxes without $10,000 will be removed. As for Melissa, she managed to get 2 out of 3 half priced items right and picked the box marked #7 (not only a lucky number, but the age of her little girl, or daughter for the rest of y’all out there). At Bob’s cue of “Now!” Melissa opened the box to reveal $10,000 in cash. A perfect beginning to a fun Pricing game!

I also named the rows of boxes "Box Central".

[chris319]

Actually, with the name "Half Off" I was expecting something a little different. I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad, but given the troubles Barker has had ...

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:53 PM\'] I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad [/quote]
 You did read that this game was created by Mandel Ilagan and not Phil Rossi, right?

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:53 PM\'] Actually, with the name "Half Off" I was expecting something a little different. I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad, but given the troubles Barker has had ... [/quote]
 It could've worked, but then the next game would've been Cover-Up.

[BrandonFG]

All in all, I really enjoyed this game (congrats to Mandel), and found a new game to hope to play if/when I go on TPiR. :-)

One concern I had was that the three choices seemed a bit *too* easy. The $70 toaster versus...I can't remember what it was, but the difference between the two was huge (where would a toaster *ever* be $140?). I think TPiR should spring for more inexpensive stuff, i.e. the Cliffhangers price range, just to close the gap.

Mind you, this isn't a rip on you, Mandel, as I said, I love the game, but it was just something that really stood out when I watched this morning.

BTW, I read the blog story, but you didn't watch any Treasure Hunt before coming up with this, did you? ;-)

[TV Favorites]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:29 PM\'] All in all, I really enjoyed this game (congrats to Mandel), and found a new game to hope to play if/when I go on TPiR. :-)

One concern I had was that the three choices seemed a bit *too* easy. The $70 toaster versus...I can't remember what it was, but the difference between the two was huge (where would a toaster *ever* be $140?). I think TPiR should spring for more inexpensive stuff, i.e. the Cliffhangers price range, just to close the gap.

Mind you, this isn't a rip on you, Mandel, as I said, I love the game, but it was just something that really stood out when I watched this morning.

BTW, I read the blog story, but you didn't watch any Treasure Hunt before coming up with this, did you? ;-) [/quote]
 Maybe they did this on purpose for the premiere showing of the game to make a win more likely?

[Unrealtor]

There's something that bothers about any game which his the possibility of doing the pricing perfectly and still winning nothing, without any consolation prize or chance to bail out. If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) Spelling Bee and Pass the Buck offer a chance to quit while you're ahead, as does Let 'Em Roll, which also has a minimum. Hole In One offers a $500 bonus for perfect pricing.

It feels to me like there ought to be some reward for doing the pricing perfectly. What came to mind, instead of giving a straight bonus or offering a guaranteed payout, would be to have 14 empty boxes, one box with $10,000, and one with a compalitively small amount (say $1,000). If you get all three small prizes right, you can't finish with less than the smaller payout. If you don't, you have at least a 50% chance of winning nothing. Although I worry about adding any more complexity to the rules.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:49 PM\'] If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) [/quote]
 Add Secret X (2/3).

[Craig Karlberg]

First off, congrats Mandel for this one.  I was wrong as to where it was placed so that goes to show I'm only human.

As far as Half-Off goes:

The set:  Intresting shade of purple(my least favoritte color) but it didn't clash with the studio itself.

The gameplay:  Solid.  Even I wes surprised as to how it was played.  The SP part was pretty easy.  I liked how those "wrong" boxes disappear with the chimes.

The reveal:  Very FH-esque in nature but it worked very well.  Even the $10K purple graphic added that extra touch.

Overall:  Well-designed set, solid gameplay execution.  I'll give this game a 9.

[chris319]

[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:59 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:53 PM\'] I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad [/quote]
You did read that this game was created by Mandel Ilagan and not Phil Rossi, right? [/quote]
Well, ya never know. When Barker's gone they could have male models.

[chris319]

There's something that bothers about any game which his the possibility of doing the pricing perfectly and still winning nothing, without any consolation prize or chance to bail out.

I can live without the guaranteed win, but someone who aces the small prize picks deserves better than even odds of winning. As this game plays over the years, I think you'll find that the small prize component will become really, REALLY easy just to give the contestant those 50:50 odds. If the contestants average two out of three correct small prize picks, the odds of winning will hover around 1 in 4 and you'll have a high rate of losses.

Half Off also suffers from the Give or Keep syndrome in that three pair of prizes, or a total of six prizes, is about the maximum number of prizes of that size that you can reasonably expect to have in a pricing game.

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 29 2004, 03:55 AM\']I can live without the guaranteed win, but someone who aces the small prize picks deserves better than even odds of winning. As this game plays over the years, I think you'll find that the small prize component will become really, REALLY easy just to give the contestant those 50:50 odds. If the contestants average two out of three correct small prize picks, the odds of winning will hover around 1 in 4 and you'll have a high rate of losses.

Half Off also suffers from the Give or Keep syndrome in that three pair of prizes, or a total of six prizes, is about the maximum number of prizes of that size that you can reasonably expect to have in a pricing game.[/quote]
What if they were to do something like this: Six prizes, not paired up. Four are half off - pick 'em a la Grand Game. Someone would get all four for a guaranteed win occasionally, but not often enough to take away from the spirit of the game, IMO.

[Vgmastr]

What if they were to do something like this: Six prizes, not paired up. Four are half off - pick 'em a la Grand Game. Someone would get all four for a guaranteed win occasionally, but not often enough to take away from the spirit of the game, IMO.

Problem with that is it would guarantee the most a contestant would ever have to choose from would be four boxes.  In order for that to work, you'd need eight prizes.

[SplitSecond]

[quote name=\'Vgmastr\' date=\'May 29 2004, 12:10 PM\'] Problem with that is it would guarantee the most a contestant would ever have to choose from would be four boxes.  In order for that to work, you'd need eight prizes. [/quote]
 Not necessarily.  Rather than giving the player four picks at the outset, the rule could be that the contestant may continue picking as long as he or she picks the half-off items.  One false move ends the pricing portion of the game.

[Steve Gavazzi]

[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'May 29 2004, 01:18 AM\'] [quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:49 PM\'] If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) [/quote]
Add Secret X (2/3). [/quote]
And Card Game and 3 Strikes.  (Actually, I guess they're more along the lines of having situations that make it impossible to do the pricing part perfectly.)