Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game  (Read 2063 times)

chrisholland03

  • Member
  • Posts: 973
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2019, 11:11:37 AM »
As a point of reference, there was that bizarre week during the syndicated run where 3 contestants took the first level prize and left - it was a really nice motorcycle.  Contestants buying a prize ahead of the car, cash jackpot, or lot was fairly rare.  Which was probably one of several components in the Winners' Board appearing.

I honestly don't have heartache with a losing contestant being able to cash out for a prize, but think that buying a prize was a key component to the show.


TLEberle

  • Member
  • Posts: 14216
  • Game Maven
Re: Improving the Winners Big Money Game
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2019, 11:17:55 AM »
Perhaps what they could've done was have a "LOSE" square or something like that.
It's a Winners Board (or Bored), not Win Nothing Board.

If I'm a contestant on the show I would want to be on during the Money Game period. Chance at big bucks in the end game, middling bucks during the main game and nothing is ever at risk. The only downside is that the producers can tweak the end game to reduce wins in ways they cannot during shopping or prize matching.

It stands to reason that if people are stopping to win the suitcase of currency that they are not winning other prizes and cash costs what it does, while I presume that many of the Board prizes can be bought for the prize of mentioning it on the air, then that might be why shopping was comparatively short lived.
Travis L. Eberle
Director of Ludic underlings.

Neumms

  • Member
  • Posts: 1855
Re: Improving the Winners Big Money Game
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2019, 09:22:00 AM »
If I'm a contestant on the show I would want to be on during the Money Game period.

Sure, but who cares about them.

Lots of game shows, maybe most, can adjust the difficulty to suit the prize budget, but the WBMG, at least to me, felt very obvious about it. One clue word would be the clear tipping point between impossible and probable, so elapsed time depended far more on where the writers stuck that word than on the player's skill.

I recently watched Jim Perry's Canadian show Headline Hunters. The front game of that would make a more legit and interesting WBMG, shopping aside. One whole clue popped up at a time, each less obscure than the last, comparable to Trebek Double Dare or for that matter, the Fame Game.

Clay Zambo

  • Member
  • Posts: 1700
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2019, 09:58:04 AM »
Both Winner's Board and WBMG feel, to me, awkwardly tacked onto SALE; "Let's go shopping" is how the game should end.

But if you want an endgame, and you need to use some elements of the NBC show, why not base it on the Fame Game. Let's put five clue cards behind the numbers, three money cards (say, $500, 1000, and 2500--tying into the main game version), and one Stop sign. (Hey, the spaces were already octagonal, why not use it?)
Pick a number. Find a clue card, Jim reads the clue, you try to solve. Don't know the answer, try again. Pick a money card, that's what you win. Pick a stop sign, game over. Solve the puzzle, win today's prize, whatever that is.

All that said, I think TEMPTATION (the Aussie version) did the endgame as well as it could be done, and still feel like part of SALE: a series of questions that add to the champion's prize fund.

Of course, to make either of these ideas work for the NBC run we'd need some pretty sophisticated time-travel equipment.

czambo@mac.com

splinkynip

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2019, 11:17:13 AM »
As a point of reference, there was that bizarre week during the syndicated run where 3 contestants took the first level prize and left - it was a really nice motorcycle.  Contestants buying a prize ahead of the car, cash jackpot, or lot was fairly rare.  Which was probably one of several components in the Winners' Board appearing.

I honestly don't have heartache with a losing contestant being able to cash out for a prize, but think that buying a prize was a key component to the show.

On the syndicated version, About a dozen contestants bought something and left the show rather than continuing. The three motorcycles mentioned above and maybe another person left with a first level prize, 1 or 2 left with the second level prize,  same for third level prize, and 2 or 3 left with the car.

JakeT

  • Member
  • Posts: 572
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2019, 06:45:15 PM »
Both Winner's Board and WBMG feel, to me, awkwardly tacked onto SALE; "Let's go shopping" is how the game should end.

Exactly...the show was always supposed to be about the incredible bargains...when the only buying opportunities remaining are the 2-3 "instant bargains", the whole concept of the show is nearly tossed out the window...you are supposed to be, after all, building up your winnings so you can participate in a "sale of the CENTURY"!

A refrigerator for $10 is awesome but it's far from CENTURY! awesome...

JakeT

Loogaroo

  • Member
  • Posts: 472
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2019, 04:22:05 AM »
SotC tried to (or was forced to, depending on your interpretation) solve a problem that wasn't a problem: if people weren't willing to buy the mid-level prizes and instead kept shooting for the moon, then that means you either didn't have tempting enough prizes along the way or you made the lot too tempting to pass up. Personally, I think offering a progressive jackpot on top of the lot was what threw the decision metric off balance. Having a $50K+ pot of the gold at the end of the rainbow apparently made that decision trivial for most champs.

This might have swung things too far in the other direction, but what's stopping the show (aside from budgetary concerns) from making the prizes cumulative as you forge on through, instead of refusing one prize to try for the next? So you either leave with the diamond earrings, or risk them to try to add the dune buggy to your stash tomorrow. Then once you reach level 2, you have two prizes in your account that you can either leave with or risk for a third prize. Having them risk an array of prizes to push their luck a little further might be a tougher choice. This might also be one of those instances where personalized prizes might come in handy at least on one of the levels. Put something in the showroom that you know your player really wants and now you're putting them to a decision.

You're in a room. You're wearing a silly hat.
There are letters on the floor. They spell "NOPE".

Fedya

  • Member
  • Posts: 1970
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2019, 08:19:17 AM »
Don't forget about having to pay the taxes on those prizes.

The possible fix I thought of is to offer people a buyout, turning the money they've won into cash at a rate of something like a mid-four-figure per day sum.  Something not bad but not as much as the cash jackpot.
-- Ted Schuerzinger, now blogging at http://justacineast.blogspot.com/

No Fark slashes were harmed in the making of this post

TheInquisitiveOne

  • Member
  • Posts: 682
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2019, 10:23:22 PM »
While shopping was the essence of $ale, I was of the thought that the risk factor was also a large part of the show’s success. I always wished the US version took some form of the Australian Winner’s Board formula:

Six prizes, similar to Shopping, with the car in play as either the last prize to be won or added to the board if the winner’s final score exceeds $100. No cash prizes on the board (more in a bit).

After every visit, the champion decides to take the prize(s) and leave, or put them on the line in the hopes of coming back to the board on the next show.

The cash jackpot starts at $50,000 and goes up $1,000 a day until hit, just like Shopping. I like the idea of a buyout, but only if the champion clears the board. The offer would be 10% of whatever the cash jackpot is at that point.

The Inquisitive One
“Assumption is the mother of all screw ups.”

From Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Quote sanitized for forum.

SuperMatch93

  • Member
  • Posts: 780
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2019, 10:45:06 PM »
It hadn't occurred to me until now, but one could probably do a successful combination of both shopping and the WBMG.

Years ago, I hosted a game of $ale on BigJon's old netgames forum. I did a bonus round that was essentially the syndicated shopping round, but with a twist: the winner would also have a chance to earn a special bonus prize that was associated with each level. For example, if the $85 prize was kitchen appliances, they could play to win a bonus of groceries for a year. This bonus would be theirs to keep regardless of if they played on and lost.

I think the way I did it was have them answer a five-part trivia question, with all five parts necessary to win the bonus, but you could also just play the WBMG with the bonus as the prize for solving all the puzzles.
"Game shows aren't about cruelty. They're about greed and wonderful prizes like poorly built catamarans." - Homer Simpson

tyshaun1

  • Member
  • Posts: 973
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2019, 02:48:03 PM »
I wonder if perhaps it was the competition's (Press Your Luck) performance during fall 1984 that necessitated the changes to $OTC in October; with the limited info I've seen, I do know the ratings between them were pretty close for most of the time they up against each other. Paging Jason....
What the hell did I just type?

JasonA1

  • Member
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #26 on: Today at 02:39:56 PM »
Hi! :)

A bit of context: for $ale's first 13 weeks, it averaged a 19 share to Child's Play's 20. By fall 1983, it flips considerably, with $ale averaging a 23 to CP's 17. Enter Press Your Luck.

It takes a few months, but the shows end up neck-and-neck, averaging 20 shares at the end of '83. Throughout '84, Press is a consistent winner, sometimes by as much as 3%.

In April '85, $ale takes the lead back, 20 to 19. $ale's best period I can see is June 1985, where it averages a 21 share to PYL's 18. However, coverage and total share are slipping for both shows - $ale continues to win, but with 19 or 17.

Press Your Luck moves to 4:00 PM in January '86 cleared in less than half the country and pulling a 6 share. It ticks up a skosh after the first 13 weeks to 50% clearance and a 7 share, but that's the best it'll do there in both respects.

Meanwhile, $ale is outperforming Card Sharks all through their time against each other, usually by 1%. But again, it's like a cartoon flipbook - as you go forward in time, the share numbers are sliding down. By the time $ale leaves in 1989, it's losing in its new slot - 10 AM- against Family Feud, 14 to 13.

-Jason
JA1 Presents - movie reviews, TV reviews, top 5 lists and more
--or-- you can go the Twitter route

Dbacksfan12

  • Member
  • Posts: 5924
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #27 on: Today at 04:11:13 PM »
Well, I'm curious about something now...
When did Sale make the change to WBMG?  Did Goodson complain about the similarity to Concentration?
--Mark
John 6:35

BrandonFG

  • Member
  • Posts: 15363
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #28 on: Today at 04:25:42 PM »
When did Sale make the change to WBMG?  Did Goodson complain about the similarity to Concentration?
Late-1987. November or December, I believe.

Now I wonder whether the change came from $ale and Classic airing back-to-back, but that's just speculation on my part.
ALEC: On your Instagram, it says you're a millionaire playboy philanthropist? What does that mean?

TONY ROCK: It means I'm lying on Instagram like everyone else!

Joe Mello

  • Member
  • Posts: 3032
Re: Improving the Winner's Big Money Game
« Reply #29 on: Today at 05:28:23 PM »
In April '85, $ale takes the lead back, 20 to 19. $ale's best period I can see is June 1985, where it averages a 21 share to PYL's 18. However, coverage and total share are slipping for both shows - $ale continues to win, but with 19 or 17.
I wonder what the cause of the mutual slide-off was. Was it just cable existing?
This signature is currently under construction.