Improve One Pricing Game...

[Otm Shank]

This one is more aesthetics, but the zig-zagging Golden Road always bugged me, because the "road" on the floor was all over the place. I get the idea was to keep having the Big Prize visible throughout, and when cameras were larger, it was probably impossible to progress across the stage.

I originally thought the <$1 podium could be behind the turntable (with the ability to really bling out the start position). However, that puts the contestant at a weird angle to see the prizes (maybe it could work if they weren't right next to the turntable). With the jib camera, it seems like they could really show the "road" better as it progresses behind/in front of each door.

[Kevin Prather]

Two things always bugged me about Give or Keep: you weren’t actually “giving away” anything, and the “keep more than you give away” mechanic rewarded greed.

So, how about this:

(snip)

That reminds me of my great idea to fix Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy. The winner should be the one who lets the other players win the most money.

[Dbacksfan12]

So, how about this:
<snip>

Are you going to have a red kettle on the stage next to the game?

Your idea is overly complicated and doesn't make any real changes other than to assuage your feelings that it's "greedy" to complete the game's objective.

[JasonA1]

I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."

That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.

-Jason

[Joe Mello]

Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."

That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.

The solution to the time-sink problem is to make it an online giveaway like they sometimes do for one-bid prizes.

[wdm1219inpenna]

My only beef with Money Game is a player who plays it perfectly ends up winning less than a player who makes three mistakes but still wins the automobile.

Rather than having dollar signs behind the 7 incorrect pairs of numbers, have the word "NO" instead.

Should the player reveal the front and back of the car, any remaining numbers on the board itself would be given in cash, thus still tying into "Money Game".  If the car is not won after four "NO" cards are revealed, the player only receives the cash total remaining on the board.

[CeleTheRef]

To make Plinko easier to win, have a single 0 in the middle, flanked by two top value slots.
If a chip is stuck, ask the player which way to nudge it and it counts.
Special episodes could have a "gamble" feature, where you can risk your winnings to win an extra prize if you sink a chip in the middle slot.

[Denials]

My only beef with Money Game is a player who plays it perfectly ends up winning less than a player who makes three mistakes but still wins the automobile.

Rather than having dollar signs behind the 7 incorrect pairs of numbers, have the word "NO" instead.

Should the player reveal the front and back of the car, any remaining numbers on the board itself would be given in cash, thus still tying into "Money Game".  If the car is not won after four "NO" cards are revealed, the player only receives the cash total remaining on the board.

Except that a player that knows the price of the car and fully understands the game could pull the 3 largest money values first and then front and back the car.  I think this suggestion is fixing a problem that doesn't really exist and makes the game more complicated for a quick car game.  Plus, this guarantees a cash minimum for a clueless contestant, which seems to be some people's issue with games like Let 'em Roll.

[Kevin Prather]

I only recently learned that a Money Game winner gets the money accumulated in addition to the car. I always thought it was one or the other.

[BrandonFG]

I only recently learned that a Money Game winner gets the money accumulated in addition to the car. I always thought it was one or the other.

Same, and by "recently" I mean literally right this minute.

[Clay Zambo]

I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."

That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.

-Jason

Your point about the shorter runtime of modern episodes is entirely valid (and one of the many reasons you work in this industry far more regularly than I do).

[Jeremy Nelson]

I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."

That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.

-Jason

Even if we're talking three digit prizes, the premise's crux falls a little flat when considering that more expensive doesn't necessarily equal most desairable. You give me the choice between a $500 espresso machine and a $300 pasta maker? Yeah, I'll give you the latter, doubly so if it means I'm going to Fiji. If you're not offering something specifically valuable to that player, the greed vs altruism angle is a non-issue.

[chrisholland03]

I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."

That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.

-Jason

Even if we're talking three digit prizes, the premise's crux falls a little flat when considering that more expensive doesn't necessarily equal most desairable. You give me the choice between a $500 espresso machine and a $300 pasta maker? Yeah, I'll give you the latter, doubly so if it means I'm going to Fiji. If you're not offering something specifically valuable to that player, the greed vs altruism angle is a non-issue.

What if they both get the grand prize for successful altruism?