The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chris319 on July 23, 2004, 03:58:07 PM
-
OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:
What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill?
-
You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.
You tell us.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 01:08 PM\'] You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.
You tell us. [/quote]
Read the question and those 13 posts again. I do not enjoy seeing him on the show let alone win money.
As for the number of posts, since you felt compelled to count them, you can't say Ken is not a topical, timely subject. Why do you suppose the New York Times is running stories about him?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 12:58 PM\'] OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:
What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill? [/quote]
You're basically asking "What's the big thrill in watching game shows?".
If you don't see the point in watching game shows, why did you start this board?
And furthermore, why do you insist on undermining this accomplishment, when you know full well that Ken Jennings is a member of this board, and you are probably insulting the crap out of him right now?
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 04:08 PM\'] You've mentioned Ken in 13 out of your last 25 posts and started an ample number of threads about him.
You tell us. [/quote]
Chris the C, in the words of Chynna Phillips, can you hold on for one more day? After today's season finale, it'll all die down (at least until September).
Here my one cent (after taxes): Someone sees someone win a lot of money, he could think, "that could be me". If a born loser sees someone gets waxed, he doesn't feel so bad about himself. OK, so that my best work, but what can one cent buy you these days?
ObGS: Chynna appeared on Celebrity Blackjack recently. Also, her husband, Billy Baldwin was first out of the ring of fire during his edition of Celebrity Millionaire.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 03:58 PM\'] OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:
What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill? [/quote]
I've just always liked the element of surprise, the look on their faces, etc.....And the sound effects on some shows that accompany those "big wins" only add to the excitement.
Case in point:
Imagine watching a DSW on TPiR and Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and all that happens is that the total flashes on the podium and she's happy, and that's it.
Then, watch a DSW where Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and there are bells going off, clanging, whooping, and the words "DOUBLE SHOWCASE WINNER" flashing on the screen. That's hella cool. That's what makes it so exciting.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 11:58 AM\'] What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? [/quote]
But Chris, in your heart you know better than that. Every producer and programmer you or I have ever talked with (Goodson himself, among them) have regaled us with endless tales of how playalong is the most important factor in crafting a hit.
Psychobabblewise, people relate to and compare their own instincts about what they would do in the situations that others are in. It's people-watching on steroids, and it serves several psychological needs... fantasy escapism, self-reassurance among them.
Much of it is the stuff that an entire HUGE industry has been built on: watching, judging and identifying with pituitary-disordered people running back and forth with a ball. It's called sports.
Watching other people battle challenges is the basis of everything from "Fear Factor" to Shakepearean tragedy. The dramatic element of character development is replaced by the contestant interview or the "quiet room" solo talk-to-the-camera segments on "Big Brother"-type shows. And that is all about the fact that it is easier to relate to a stranger if you can find some commonality with them.
So we learn at least where they are from and what they do for a living as the ultimate shorthand for getting to know the total stranger. And we ask "How do you feel?" and "What will you do with the money?" as ways to make it easier for the home viewer to get involved, emote, relate and identify. It's the same reason contestant coordinators love outgoing players who are demonstrative and so emotionally accessible. It's why people on honeymoons or celebrating birthdays make great participants - emotional common ground that audience members share with the player - we all have birthdays.
And it's the same reason that at least one member of the armed forces in uniform is almost guaranteed a spot in contestants' row on TPiR if they are in the audience that day. We instantly have feelings about members of the military and believe we know at least SOMETHING about their lives without a single word being spoken. Most of America knows someone who was or is in the armed forces, so the viewer can instantly feel a connection with those players.
Still reading? Then we BOTH need lives! Yes, I have an extensive education (and even some certification) in the field of psychology. Developing rapport with audience members, creating the sense of family among them, and maintaining their interest and involvement with game play are the vital elements in good audience warm-up. It's more about psychology than stand-up comedy. I've been a fascinated student of all this kinda stuff for years.
Now I gotta go get ready to watch, relate to, identify with and laugh/cry/celebrate/commiserate/emote with other people. Should I watch a soap or "America's Funniest Home Videos" or dodgeball? Or maybe I should actually talk with a real-life friend.
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
I love watching people that are happy. I know is probably sounds lame, but there is this one episode of Hollywood Squares that had an emotional female contestant that won the Secret Square (a car and a trip around the world, I think) and started to cry. While Peter Marshall is describing what she had won, Buddy Hackett remarks, "This girl is crying!" As soon as he says that, I cry, too. I just feel so happy for her, especially because she said that she never wins anything. I try not to get too emotionally attached to game show contestants in general, but that is one exception I'm happy to make.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 01:21 PM\'] Read the question and those 13 posts again. I do not enjoy seeing him on the show let alone win money. [/quote]
It took me a mere 30 seconds to quantify your obsession with this man - far less time than you've spent actually obsessing about him.
I'll restate my answer from when you asked this EXACT SAME QUESTION weeks ago:
The thrill for me is not outcome-based. If all I was interested in was the outcome of a basketball game, I'd just watch the last 5 minutes. If all I was interested in was the outcome of a game show, all I'd do is read Steve Beverly's website or look at the Show Summaries section of this forum.
But yet I'm watching Ken Jennings' run on Jeopardy! Why? Because of the exact reason the show works in the first place - play-along. The contestants can't signal in until the question is read, but I can sure shout out the answer any time I please. I then get the positive feeling from having "beat" Ken to the answer - or better yet, getting the answer when Ken doesn't get to answer it correctly. And when Ken and I both miss a question, I don't feel so bad about my limited breadth of knowledge.
Up until now, the average Jeopardy! viewer could give a flying flip about who wins each game. My grandmother watches to feel good about getting the Final Jeopardy answer right, not to see whether the contestant that she likes wins or loses.
Here's a different example of progression vs. outcome:
Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices". That game doesn't see the light of day. Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B). Pricing Game B makes it to air. Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch. Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.
As an outcome person, Chris, you're merely interested in the fact that Pricing Game B is on the air. As a progression person, I have a serious problem with Person A claiming that he created Pricing Game B.
That's where we differ.
-
Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices". That game doesn't see the light of day. Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B). Pricing Game B makes it to air. Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch. Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.
As an outcome person, Chris, you're merely interested in the fact that Pricing Game B is on the air. As a progression person, I have a serious problem with Person A claiming that he created Pricing Game B.
If this has any connection at all to watching other people win money on TV, it's lost on me.
-
Every producer and programmer you or I have ever talked with (Goodson himself, among them) have regaled us with endless tales of how playalong is the most important factor in crafting a hit.
Therein lies the crux of this question: We both know that Concentration didn't last umpteen years because of the thrill of watching someone win a Michael C. Fina silver service. There was a game to be played (as there is with Jeopardy!). Jeopardy! didn't start getting PR and ink until Ken approached and surpassed the $1 million mark. In the mid-fifties it could legitimately be argued that pure novelty accounted in large part for the popularity of $64,000 Question and Twenty One. The same argument could be made again in 1999 with WWTBAM, which has its roots in $64,000 Question and which was being introduced to a new generation 44 years later.
The examples you cited, sports and Fear Factor, as well as hundreds of game shows over the decades, give the viewer something to watch even if there is nothing at stake. You know this from participating in more office run-thrus than you probably care to count. Ever play Password in your living room with (shock and awe) NO money at stake? This gets to the question of why people watch (playalong) but not to the question of why they enjoy Jeopardy! most of the time but really, really enjoy it even more when the five-appearance rule is liften and a guy approaches and surpasses $1 million.
Now here's a question within a question: If viewers are drawn by the vicarious thrill of watching other people win big money as you say, why didn't Million Dollar Chance of a Lifetime or every state lottery program in existence take off? Why isn't there interest in a Million-Dollar Mindreaders?
-
The reason why, is because although the chance for huge wins can initally draw people to a show, that novelty wears out quick. The gameplay has to be there for the people to stay. If it's not there, then the show will not take off. That simple.
-
Imagine watching a DSW on TPiR and Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and all that happens is that the total flashes on the podium and she's happy, and that's it.
Then, watch a DSW where Bob says, "You win both showcases!", and there are bells going off, clanging, whooping, and the words "DOUBLE SHOWCASE WINNER" flashing on the screen. That's hella cool. That's what makes it so exciting.
Interesting that you should bring this up. Notice that there is no more hoopla over Ken's winnings than usual, and Jeopardy! is fairly austere in heralding the winnings of its returning champion to begin with. The graphic showing his total is on screen for less than five seconds each time and there is no other fanfare.
-
That's because it has always been that way. It would seem out of place if they did otherwise. Price has always had the bells and whistles with the DSW's. People expect to hear the bells when someone wins both SC's, on Price just as people expect to see the classy stuff on Jeopardy. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
-
I think in the case of Ken Jennings, history is being made and we all want to witness something no one has ever done before. The next guy to do it won't be as remembered.
-
The reason Jeopardy! is getting ink now-- as opposed to at other times during its run-- is because what's happening now is an event. One man beating all comers in a battle of wits for 30+ consecutive outings on national television, for the first time in the show's 20+ year history, and winning a record sum of money in the bargain-- that's a bonafide event. It's a human interest story. It's a success story. It's a geek-inheriting-the-earth story. It's a how-long-can-he-keep-it-going? story. People want to know who Ken is, how he prepared for his feat, what it is about his background or personality that makes him able to do what he's doing. People want to compare themselves to Ken and put themselves in his shoes.
People are writing and watching because what's going on now on Jeopardy! is an event. This is exactly the kind of thing the producers were hoping for when they changed the rules to allow it, but on a scale they couldn't possibly have dreamed about.
It's not about watching someone win. It's about bearing witness to the Moment.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 03:07 PM\']we all want to witness something no one has ever done before.[/quote]
How many people have won $1 million or more on U.S. television in the past five years?
-
Sure a lot have done so, but how many have taken over a month to do it?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 05:32 PM\'] [quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 03:07 PM\']we all want to witness something no one has ever done before.[/quote]
How many people have won $1 million or more on U.S. television in the past five years? [/quote]
Well, quite a few, but not on plain ol' J!
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 05:37 PM\'] Sure a lot have done so, but how many have taken over a month to do it? [/quote]
And "Survivor" doesn't count.
Which means only one......
JenKennings.
-
I can't believe you're still going on about this, Chris. Are you even considering the fact that you might be insulting Ken?
Allow me to redirect you to your Eligibility Requirements, (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3\") specifically number six.
6. Distasteful Posts
Posts deemed to be offensive, in generally bad taste or inflammatory in nature, will subject the author to disciplinary action. Posting messages which are harassing, insulting, belittling or derisive to other board member(s), or which incite personal attacks against other board member(s), will be considered grounds for disciplinary action. A pattern of excessive and gratuitous use of foul language shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action.
These are your rules, so how about following them?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 02:58 PM\'] OK all you amateur Freuds out there, the question I pose to you is this:
What kind of jollies do TV viewers get from watching other people win large sums of money? I know I'd be ecstatic if it were my [/i]money, but you can't spend other people's money, so what's the big thrill? [/quote]
Hmmm... let me take a wildly speculative guess. You hate that Ken is winning so much money, right? Why don't you just stop watching Jeopardy!, and better yet, if you don't like to see people win lots of money, why do you watch game shows at all?
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'adamjk\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 05:37 PM\']Sure a lot have done so, but how many have taken over a month to do it?[/quote]
And that's a month on a show with a reputation for having the brightest contestants and the toughest questions you'll ever see on TV, too.
-
I was happy to watch Ken until I saw the photo composite that accompanied this article:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/27747.htm (http://\"http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/27747.htm\")
Those of you who don't read the print edition of the Post should consider yourselves lucky. I'm going to have nightmares for weeks. :-D
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 01:50 PM\'] This gets to the question of why people watch (playalong) but not to the question of why they enjoy Jeopardy! most of the time but really, really enjoy it even more when the five-appearance rule is liften and a guy approaches and surpasses $1 million. [/quote]
Yes, playalong. But even more specifically it's about the audience member living vicariously through the contestant.
Again, the viewer is identifying with, relating to, emoting with, comparing him/herself to the contestant... having an emotional connection with and experiencing the action through the player.
The viewership, excitement and interest rises as the winning player's streak continues partially because we get to know him better and find it easier to connect with him (Ken is so telegenic, emotionally demonstrative and likeable - he's an ideal contestant), but primarily because it becomes even more of a rush imagining yourself in his shoes. It's more drama. Rockclimbing in a mall vs reaching the top of Mt. Everest. The common man doing the seemingly impossible. Dan Enright played this fiddle like it was a Stradivarius.
Now here's a question within a question: If viewers are drawn by the vicarious thrill of watching other people win big money as you say, why didn't Million Dollar Chance of a Lifetime or every state lottery program in existence take off?
Chris, you were quoting and referencing things I said at the top of your post, but are far afield of it now. Nowhere did I say anything about big money. NONE of it is about money. I've watched people with the personalities of floormops spin and win $3 million on the lottery show and it can be a giant bore. I need to be rooting for, identifying with, or even hating the player. It's about emotional involvement.
We only began to care about that woman who won $600 million (or whatever it was) a few weeks ago when we learned she worked as a janitor or something, or when we heard her friends talk about her. It's nothing without an emotional connection. Thus the overall term "playalong".
It's the same for all of reality TV. Eight jerks in a house only gets interesting when you start to like some, hate some, or get horny for one. How 'bout that effervescent blond? How hot is she, and how long would it take before I wanted to tell her to shut up!
Unless I care about the people "Big Brother" only makes me think about what kind of overtime those crews make on a 24/7 show!
Scroll back and read it all again... or give me a mic, pay me scale, and I'll read it for ya! ;p
Randy
tvrandywest.com
-
You hate that Ken is winning so much money, right?
Wrong. Go back and read my posts. They revolve around the fact that for the past 30+ shows the matches have been grossly imbalanced and the outcomes totally predictable. This would apply whether he had $1 million or $1 hundred.
-
Even so, Chris, I think Randy hit the nail on the head. Ken is a likeable person and intently smart, plus it is very intriguing to play along with a contestant who seemingly "knows all". Plus anyone who can humanize Alex Trebek on this show like Ken has, IMO, deserves some brownie points.
Tyshaun
-
Chris, you were quoting and referencing things I said at the top of your post, but are far afield of it now. Nowhere did I say anything about big money. NONE of it is about money.
Yes, I did digress with my question-within-a-question, but the original topic of this thread dealt with watching people win money on TV. Everyone is fixating solely on Ken Jennings when this discussion applies equally to Charles Van Doren, Joyce Brothers, Teddy Nadler, Thom McKee, Dave Legler, Leszek, etc.
Ken is so telegenic, emotionally demonstrative and likeable - he's an ideal contestant
In the opinion of many he is.
I think Peter Sarrett captured the essence of this dynamic best in saying that it's all about "the event".
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 07:45 PM\'] Wrong. Go back and read my posts. They revolve around the fact that for the past 30+ shows the matches have been grossly imbalanced and the outcomes totally predictable. This would apply whether he had $1 million or $1 hundred. [/quote]
Well, pardon me then. So again, what's wrong with rooting for a likeable guy "beating the house?" It isn't a crime that he knows his stuff. I find that an average joe taking a game show for a lot of money honestly is entertaining. Quite frankly, that's the pretty much what attracts anyone to any game show, especially us fans.
Additionally, a lot of the games I have seen have not been always predictable. Daily Doubles can change the course of a game really quickly, even when Ken finds them. But there is something captivating about seeing him win, and America feels the same way even if it does baffle you.
However, you seem to take a lot of your frustration with J! and their unlimited wins rule on Ken. It's your party and you can do what you want, but you angst is misplaced.
Brandon Brooks
-
you seem to take a lot of your frustration with J! and their unlimited wins rule on Ken
Wrong again. The unlimited appearance rule is not Ken's doing and I do not fault him for it. I simply don't find him as likable a contestant as many of our hard-boiled fans here. I'm sure Ken is a wonderful guy in person but I'm not going to enumerate my issues with him as a contestant here.
-
Lemme throw another 'side issue' into this...
Okay, let's say you're a big time game show nut, but you don't care for Ken Jennings's reign of terror....
However, Ken's success is responsible for a 50% ratings bump in Jep for many affiliates (mine included)....., and , fingers crossed, may breathe new life into the syndicated game show field.
I stand by my earlier prediction that Ken's tremendous success may lead to producers thinking again about new game shows for next fall, some perhaps with unlimited , straddled winnings...
So, back to the original question : Can you not like Jeopardy these days, but love what it potentially may do for the genre? Or Chris, do you think that negative implications are around the corner?
Am I making sense? It's late. But in my own mind, I think I'm on to something here...
-
Jeopardy! is a pillar of the game show genre which did very well in the ratings before Ken came along. Call me a pessimist, but I don't envision a packager/studio/syndicator taking a chance with a new format in hopes of emulating Jeopardy!'s success with Ken, nor do I see it happening with anything currently on the air or with a remake of something previously on the air (say, Tic Tac Dough or The $64,000 Question).
Not even $1 Million Mindreaders.
-
I still hope to god that you aren't offending Ken with all this. It would really suck if he stopped coming here because of you.
-
Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices". That game doesn't see the light of day. Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B). Pricing Game B makes it to air. Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch. Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.
The first problem with this is that you've made an artificial distinction by referring to them as Pricing Game A and Pricing Game B. There is no distinction; they're the same game.
You weren't involved in the process so you don't know firsthand that B "had no knowledge" of A's pitch. The fact is that A's pitch was made in front of many of the same people who worked on TPIR when Switch? was introduced: Roger, Phil, Kathy, Stan, Bart, Paul, Gina. Any one of them was in a position to be person B and re-pitch the same idea years later. If you're going to claim that your information came from Roger, Phil, Kathy, Stan, Bart, Paul or Gina, I'll believe it when I hear it from their lips.
I don't know if you're aware that one of the most popular TPIR pricing games was in effect "ghost written" by one person within G-T so that it could be pitched by, and credit for it claimed by, someone else within G-T. You didn't know Frank Wayne but he once claimed to me that he "created" Password, which we all know was brought to Goodson by Bob Stewart who himself may have received the idea from Nat Ligerman via Monty Hall. And we've all heard that Goodson kept Bob Bach on a lifetime stipend in exchange for perpetuating the myth that Goodson himself created What's My Line? With all of this credit-stealing going on at least my claim to be the first person to pitch the concept for Switch? is legitimate and I stand by it.
Considering that two personal acquaintances of yours can both legitimately claim to have supplied pricing games to TPIR and you can't, your post is frankly redolent of envy and sour grapes.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 08:36 PM\'] I still hope to god that you aren't offending Ken with all this. It would really suck if he stopped coming here because of you. [/quote]
You've made your point, thank you.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 10:01 PM\'] Wrong again. The unlimited appearance rule is not Ken's doing and I do not fault him for it. I simply don't find him as likable a contestant as many of our hard-boiled fans here. I'm sure Ken is a wonderful guy in person but I'm not going to enumerate my issues with him as a contestant here. [/quote]
Well, you've mentioned Ken in not such a flattering light several times as of late, whether in jest or not. So you must have something against him. You've made it very clear that you don't like him as a contestant. Whether that and your dislike for J! is blended, I don't know, but it seems like it is.
I don't really care that much anymore though. Like I said, it's your party. I'm done.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 11:36 PM\'] I still hope to god that you aren't offending Ken with all this. It would really suck if he stopped coming here because of you. [/quote]
I don't think Ken would stop coming here because of what Chris might think of him.
I would think that Ken realizes that not everyone is fond of his run, and while he might not like it, I would imagine he accepts it.
-
[quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 07:36 PM\'] I still hope to god that you aren't offending Ken with all this. [/quote]
If he's offended, Ken can buy the whole friggin' thing and shut us down. That would certainly quiet thos <click>
-
[quote name=\'tvrandywest\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 10:05 PM\'] [quote name=\'whoserman\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 07:36 PM\'] I still hope to god that you aren't offending Ken with all this. [/quote]
If he's offended, Ken can buy the whole friggin' thing and shut us down. That would certainly quiet thos <click> [/quote]
On days like today I'd sell the whole damn board to the first person who gives me two cents for it.
I'm sure my little barbs will have Ken crying all the way to his tax accountant's office ;-)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Jul 23 2004, 02:14 PM\']
Person A creates and pitches Pricing Game A - let's call it "Flip Flop Prices". That game doesn't see the light of day. Person B comes along and creates the exacts same game 10 years later - let's call it "Switch?" (Pricing Game B). Pricing Game B makes it to air. Person B had no knowledge of Person A or Person A's pitch. Person A claims to several hundred people that he created Pricing Game B.
As an outcome person, Chris, you're merely interested in the fact that Pricing Game B is on the air. As a progression person, I have a serious problem with Person A claiming that he created Pricing Game B.
If this has any connection at all to watching other people win money on TV, it's lost on me. [/quote]
It's merely an analogy explaining why you (or whatever staunch, tactless devil's advocate position you seem to be obsessed with lately) don't get why people are watching Ken.
How I arrived at it:
In that cursory little search to quantify how much you've been obsessing over Ken lately, I came across this fun little gem on your profile:
The Price Is Right (creator of "Switch?" game)
The reasons that you don't care about Jeopardy are similar to the reasons you don't care about the sheer inaccuracy of that statement, so I figured you would understand my opinion re: Jeopardy better if I used a more personal example. Despite your denial, I seem to have made my point.
I'm just curious, though... how long has that been in your profile? Was it there when you were threatening the people on this board about posting erroneous information?
Priceless.
-
The reasons that you don't care about Jeopardy are similar to the reasons you don't care about the sheer inaccuracy of that statement, so I figured you would understand my opinion re: Jeopardy better if I used a more personal example.
Huh? What kind of nonsense is that?
I would say the one obsessing here is Caleb Nelson, over my legitimate claim to being the original creator of the TPIR game now known as Switch? Yes, the idea was revisited some time after I pitched it, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea was originally pitched by me. My, those grapes are sour.
Time to give it a rest now.