The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: edholland83 on June 18, 2003, 10:52:28 AM
-
With Pyramid being renewed for another season, This was an interesting question I wanted to ask was:
Do you think that a new version of password work in this time?
And which fomat would work?
1. a best of three games to 25 (CBS and early ABC Version)
2. a best of three games to 50 (Later modified ABC Version)
3. Or the Password +/Super Password format
My thoughts are that even though a lot of people think that the original format has gotten stale and wouldn't retain the people with short attention spans, some games might only take 2-3 words if playing to 25, which may keep some viewers interested, if it isn't dumbed-down (and there's adaquette judging). So I would prefer either 1 or 2 or maybe even a best of 3 to 35 points
I hope to hear from everybody to chime in on this question
-
I don't know...I'm not sure if audiences are as intelligent as they were before. But If any format were to stick around the longest, I think it would be the P+/SP one-the puzzles are fun to follow.
-
[quote name=\'edholland83\' date=\'Jun 18 2003, 09:52 AM\']Do you think that a new version of password work in this time?
And which fomat would work?
1. a best of three games to 25 (CBS and early ABC Version)
2. a best of three games to 50 (Later modified ABC Version)
3. Or the Password +/Super Password format
[/quote]
I'd probably use the P+/SP format, only because the younger folks that remember Password probably remember those two shows best, and would likely say \"Allen WHO?!\" Remember, producers look at the 18-34 generation nowadays. :-)
Have the password start at a given point value, say 50 points, and decrease by 10 on each team guess. A correct guess allows the points to go into a \"bank,\" which is won when the puzzle is guessed. Most points at the end wins the game, and plays a two-part bonus round.
Part-one is like the Lightning Round, where the team has :45 to get 5 words, at $200 a pop. Afterwards, the team plays Alphabetics to play for 10X their Lightning Round winnings. If they get all 5 words, they play for $20,000.
Alphabetics is the same....10 words in :60, you win the money, or $500 a word. An illegal clue forfeits the chance of winning the full jackpot.
If I confused anybody, I'm tired....damn near confused myself. :-P
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jun 18 2003, 08:16 AM\'] Have the password start at a given point value, say 50 points, and decrease by 10 on each team guess. A correct guess allows the points to go into a "bank," which is won when the puzzle is guessed. Most points at the end wins the game, and plays a two-part bonus round. [/quote]
And you've made the same design error that many people before you have as well: you are penalizing a team for solving a puzzle early.
-
And you've made the same design error that many people before you have as well: you are penalizing a team for solving a puzzle early.
Yes. A certain moderator here will probably tell the story that this nearly became the scoring on Password Plus also. :-)
David
-
I wasn't as fond of the Password Puzzles because you sometimes would have a clue word show up as a password later within the same round, also they would occasionally have initials rather than words as passwords. The CBS/ABC shows were a better test of word knowlege, IMO (try using that as a password sometime). Lightning Round was more exciting than Alphabetics because of the unpredicability factor (and I liked how the words came up from under the table.) I also enjoyed the much maligned 1975 format because you had to think fast in the qualifying game. I don't believe a revival would be successful in today's television climate, the Great Unwashed would not have the patience for it.
-
Well, clues showing up as passwords later on is just part of life in puzzle-land. But I'd think with careful puzzle-writing that could be minimized. (As could the elimination of initials as passwords.)
Since you're so fond of Lightning Round (and I am, too, I admit), how 'bout this:
30 minute format, no straddling.
P+ passwords and puzzles played, but each time a team solves a puzzle, they play a 5-word, 30-second Lightning Round to determine how much they'll win. (Substitute real prize amounts depending on the production budget) First two puzzles @ 1 point/word, then 2, 3, etc. High scorer at the end of the show plays Alphabetics for a gazillion dollars, or a really nice hand-knitted sweater, or whatever.
(If I've proposed this format before, I apologize; the memory is the second thing to go and I can't remember the first.)
-
I think it could work. I've always been partial to shows that reward you for what you know and how well/quickly you can use it.
If it were to come back, I think it would have to be primarily in the P+SP style. Instead of decreasing points, how about a bonus if you guess the puzzle on the first clue? 25 points? 50?
I'm split on doing BOTH a Lightning Round and an Alphabetics in the end game. On one hand, it seems convoluted and redundant. But on the other, it could help the show fill out the time so that it would be a non-straddling show.
Five words, $200 per word, then 'Betics for 10x for a max pot of $10,000. Works for me, if straddling isn't wanted.
How about this too -- play a Cashword somewhere in the front game for a set amount, say $2,000. BUT it also works as a doubler. If you get the Cashword and you end up winning the game, your 'Betics pot is automatically doubled.
-
Okay, here's a thought...
The puzzle starts at 250 points. The first word is shown. Team A gets the first crack. Their first guess is free. If they get it wrong, though, it takes ten points off the puzzle value, and team B gets a guess. Each team gets up to three guesses and for each missed guess except B's last, the puzzle value goes down 10 points. B's last guess instead triggers the revealing of the password; a maximum of 50 points can be lost on any word.
Once the PW is correctly guessed, they have one chance to solve the puzzle for that value. They do, they get the points. They don't, no penalty.
Game is to 400 points. If we get to the third puzzle, then it plays at 500 points to start and 20 points lost per word.
Lemme know what you think of this idea.
-
I think you could easily combine the original and P+ formats...Make it a best of 3 to 50 points each game.
You work the passwords like the classic (10 to 0), then play a Password Puzzle with the following scoring scale.
1st clue--10
2nd clue--7
3rd clue--5
4th clue--3
5th clue--1
If a team wins on a password, simply reveal the puzzle and if time runs out in the middle of a puzzle, reveal it and start a new one the next show.
The bonus round should be called \"The Big Money Lightning Round\" and played like Alphabetics...start the jackpot at $10k, add $5k to the jackpot each time it's missed.
BTW, one illegal clue in bonus loses jackpot chance....Music cue idea--the cue used on TPIR's Pushover would work under the lightning round (subtle intensity)
-
[quote name=\'willmorris\' date=\'Jun 19 2003, 10:05 AM\'] Each team gets up to three guesses and for each missed guess except B's last
[/quote]
Basic Law Of Game Show Design: If you need to use the word \"except\" when forming a rule, rethink the rule.
There are exceptions (\"Can't put a circle there, you have to earn that yourself\" comes to mind), but this isn't one of them.
[quote name=\'tom0930\' date=\'Jun 19 2003,11:16 AM\']The bonus round should be called \"The Big Money Lightning Round\"[/quote]
Only if your set design involves game elements sitting among huge hunks of cheese. Then this name fits in fine.
and played like Alphabetics...
Then why not call it \"Alphabetics?\"
(And yes, I thought referring to the endgame as \"Super Password\" when it was still Alphabetics was stupid, too.)
the cue used on TPIR's Pushover would work under the lightning round (subtle intensity)
There should be a law that every game show bonus round involving a clock use the 70's/80's Pyramid clock sound. There is no better, the ultimate has been uncovered, further experimentation is unnecessary.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 19 2003, 02:35 PM\'] There should be a law that every game show bonus round involving a clock use the 70's/80's Pyramid clock sound. There is no better, the ultimate has been uncovered, further experimentation is unnecessary. [/quote]
Wouldn't it get a little dull, though? There might be no better FX, but I'm perfectly willing to hear lesser sounds now and again in the interest of variety. (And to keep freelance sound designers at work!)
That clock is a damn fine sound, I'll grant you...
-
[quote name=\'Clay Zambo\' date=\'Jun 19 2003, 07:55 PM\'] Wouldn't it get a little dull, though? There might be no better FX, but I'm perfectly willing to hear lesser sounds now and again in the interest of variety. (And to keep freelance sound designers at work!)
[/quote]
You're right, of course. But you see my point...why steal something else, why not try to be original? If you're GONNA steal, the perfect thing to steal is out there and acknowledged, don't bother stealing something lesser. But I agree originality can be a good thing...I paraphrase from I think it's Keith Olbermann who writes in his and Dan Patrick's excellent book The Big Show: \"Don't try to sound like Bob Costas, because you deny yourself the opportunity to sound like somebody else...or maybe somebody better.\"
-
Okay, there are a few issues at hand.
First is \"puzzles or not\". I don't think that you can bring the original Password back while Pyramid is on the air without it seeming like a knockoff. Remember, Pyramid was an 'improvement' on the old Password format and logically came after it. Since Pyramid isn't doing excremently good in ratings, why would you bring back an older, slower version of the show?
So, assuming puzzles, you have to come up with a format which is both simple and allows for a non-straddling format. A game like Password is not as compelling as WWTBAM or Survivor, and likely wouldn't hold similar amounts of interest overnight. And the problem with best two-out-of-three matches is that there's the odd chance the game would end early, and you've got four minutes to fill.
So, if I really had to revive this show (and keep in mind that I probably wouldn't want to revive it at this time anyway), I'd probably have three games, each worth a certain amount of money but each round being equal (say, $500) and then an Alphabetics-type round for ten times whatever is won. Even if the game is decided after two puzzles, there's a reason to play a third game -- the winner wants an extra $500 and a chance to turn it into $5000, and the loser still wants to pocket $500.
Basic Law Of Game Show Design: If you need to use the word \"except\" when forming a rule, rethink the rule.
There are exceptions[...]
Does that mean that you need to rethink the Basic Law of GS Design?
-
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Password+/SP's format. Except I'd do it like this: Best of 3, winner recieves $500, Alphabetics played for $10,000 and increases $5,000 'til won. I was thinking maybe let the Ca$hword be a random thing, and maybe start that at the SP amount: $1,000 and increase $500 (or something) 'til won.
Maybe mix in both P+'s and SP's set. If they wanna reuse a theme, use either one. If they wanna make a new theme, make it sound SOMETHING close to the original theme! (or something)
-
These words have been repeated countless times on message boards, and probably in meetings when designing revivals:
Person A: The format is fine, *Except I'd change this this, and this*
Folks, if you've got things you wanna change/add/subtract, you obviously \"don't\" think the format is finel
I'd like to say \"Use the Super Password format, leave everything as was\", but there's one thing that's GOTTA be fixed. Change the name of the bonus game BACK to Alphabetics, Dammit. Other than that, IMO, SP had about the best format a Password version could have....
-
My opinion (varying very slightly): SP, with P+ puzzle scoring--that is, with every puzzle making a difference in the outcome of the game.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 01:31 AM\'] My opinion (varying very slightly): SP, with P+ puzzle scoring--that is, with every puzzle making a difference in the outcome of the game. [/quote]
Pre-Kennedy scoring, you mean. This is a false statement, because all puzzles make a difference in the outcome of P+ and SP.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 12:18 AM\'] This is a false statement, because all puzzles make a difference in the outcome of P+ and SP.
[/quote]
How so? If the puzzles are scored $100 - $200 - $300 - $300, and game is to $500, then the game is a simple best of three, and the first puzzle is nothing more than a warmup.
Even if one of the later puzzles goes unsolved, it's STILL first-to-solve-two, ignoring the results of the $100 puzzle.
(Now, if I'm misremembering, and the puzzles scored $100 - $200 - $300 - $400, then I will eat my words, but even then it's dependent on either the $200 or $300 puzzle going unsolved.)
-
The scoring for SP was 100-200-300-400, and if a puzzle went unsolved, they played another puzzle for the same value. Gene would sometimes say in the end credits that an unguessed puzzle was edited out of the show, or words to that effect.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 05:08 AM\'] The scoring for SP was 100-200-300-400, and if a puzzle went unsolved, they played another puzzle for the same value. [/quote]
Okay, then I stand by my comments, the game was still first to solve two, if you ignore the outcome of the first puzzle.
-
[quote name=\'tom0930\' date=\'Jun 19 2003, 01:16 PM\'] The bonus round should be called "The Big Money Lightning Round" and played like Alphabetics...start the jackpot at $10k, add $5k to the jackpot each time it's missed.
[/quote]
What's wrong with calling the bonus round \"Alphabetics\"? Geez. we've got Pearson's Game Show Improvement Syndrome on here! Everyone wants to rework the game. The last several times Pearson tried that -- with maybe the exception of \"Family Feud\" -- they made the show worse. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. There were very few changes between P+ & SP, the most notable being the scoring system and the addition of the Cashword. Look how long that revival lasted.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 01:21 PM\'] There were very few changes between P+ & SP, the most notable being the scoring system and the addition of the Cashword. Look how long that revival lasted. [/quote]
Frankly, the change that I think improved the game the most was the swapping of partners after the Cashword puzzle. That helped eliminate the Pyramid syndrome of a good player being bogged down by a crappy celebrity partner.
-
Well, my two cents on this:
I'd go with the P+/SP format but I'd have the front-game played in a fashion that would have the players play to a specific time-point in the show (leaving enough time for an end-game for the winner), rather than a \"best-of-3\" or a specific dollar score (e.g., the \"$500\" amount that won a game on SP).
My suggested scoring:
No points for guessing a puzzle's \"clue words\" (as on P+/SP).
Scoring for solving a puzzle: In Games #1 and #2 on a given show, 100 points for solving the puzzle with one clue revealed, 80 for solving it with two clues revealed, 60 for solving it with three clues revealed, 40 for solving it with four clues revealed, and 20 for solving it with all five clues revealed.
For Game #3: Respective point values are 250, 200, 150, 100, and 50.
For Game #4: Respective point values are 500, 400, 300, 200, and 100.
If time runs out in a show before the fourth game is completed, play out the puzzle as a \"jump-in,\" revealing the clue-words one at a time (as in the \"$400\" main-game round on Farago's BtB '86); the first team to buzz in gets to guess the puzzle.
I'd go with the \"Alphabetics\" round as an end game (only one per show, and at the end of the program), but it would obviously have to be played for a fixed amount of say, $10,000, rather than the progressive \"jackpot\" that SP had.
Michael Brandenburg
(Otherwise, should make a good show to bring back.)
-
Michael Brandenberg's idea isn't bad at all. Slight changes like that do improve the game without adding so much that they take away from the essense of the game play. I'm not too keen on the $10,000 non-progressive pot. I'd probably kick it off at $25,000 minimum and increase it every time it's not won. I'd also rather see shows straddle, kind of like those damned soap operas -- wanna know how it turns out? Tune in tomorrow. As for the jump-in idea, the jury's out on that one as far as I'm concerned.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 05:55 PM\'] Michael Brandenberg's idea isn't bad at all. Slight changes like that do improve the game without adding so much that they take away from the essense of the game play. I'm not too keen on the $10,000 non-progressive pot. I'd probably kick it off at $25,000 minimum and increase it every time it's not won. I'd also rather see shows straddle, kind of like those damned soap operas -- wanna know how it turns out? Tune in tomorrow. As for the jump-in idea, the jury's out on that one as far as I'm concerned. [/quote]
That's \"mo' money\" syndrome. $10,000 isn't a bad haul for a win at a bonus game, and if there is returning champions, all the better.
Straddling's fine, but this game can well possibly be contained in a half hour.
Brandon Brooks
-
Re: Michael's suggestion for the last puzzle: Save \"All-Stars\" and the \"Password\" that followed it, buzz-ins haven't been a big part of \"Password\"--I'd kinda like to keep 'em out of this. How 'bout revealing puzzle-clues one at a time, giving the team in the lead a chance to answer after the first clue, then alternating 'til the puzzle's solved?
Variations/Adjustments: Let the team in the lead have the option to play first or second.
If there's a tie, the team who solved more Puzzles (or won more Passwords?) throughout the show plays first (or has the option).
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 01:21 PM\']
What's wrong with calling the bonus round \"Alphabetics\"?[/quote]
The last time we discussed updating Password on ezBoard, I chimed in with my GameTweak (Patent Pending). I won't go into all the specifics, since it was looked upon as too complicated (and it was), but one of my ideas for the bonus was to not give the players the initial of each password, nor sort them alphabetically; calling it Alphabetics then wouldn't make sense, so I reverted to calling it the Lightning Round. (Hey, it's the most recognizable name for a bonus in GS history; lots of GS spoofs and even the occasional real GS use the term as if it were generic.)
Alphabetics (especially during the SP era) seemed a little too easy, so I proposed what amounts to finishing two classic LRs in the space of one.
(Bet Peter Lawford could have done it! 8=D )
Esoteric Eric, and may I just chime in here and point out that this is in fact my very first post to Invision? (Wait a minute... didn't I use that on Usenet? Oh, well...)
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 06:08 PM\']
That's "mo' money" syndrome. $10,000 isn't a bad haul for a win at a bonus game, and if there is returning champions, all the better.
[/quote]
Two letters: B.S.
That's not \"'mo' money syndrome.\" That's inflation. Take a look at H2, especially the day when Peter Marshall hosted. Sheesh!
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 18 2003, 10:47 AM\'] And you've made the same design error that many people before you have as well: you are penalizing a team for solving a puzzle early. [/quote]
Couldn't that just be called strategy? Either solve it as soon as you know it, or wait for more money with the risk that the other team might get it before you - seems o.k. to me.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:03 AM\'] [quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 21 2003, 06:08 PM\']
That's \"mo' money\" syndrome. $10,000 isn't a bad haul for a win at a bonus game, and if there is returning champions, all the better.
[/quote]
Two letters: B.S.
That's not \"'mo' money syndrome.\" That's inflation. Take a look at H2, especially the day when Peter Marshall hosted. Sheesh! [/quote]
No, that isn't. 500% inflation over 15 years is ridiculous. What makes $25,000 better than $10,000 for a show where there are returning champions?
Brandon Brooks
-
Here's two more cents' worth.
That's \"mo' money\" syndrome. $10,000 isn't a bad haul for a win at a bonus game, and if there is returning champions, all the better.
Two letters: B.S.
That's not \"'mo' money syndrome.\" That's inflation. Take a look at H2, especially the day when Peter Marshall hosted. Sheesh!
Password isn't a game where the money matters that much. They used to play for $350, after all. As long as it doesn't seem cut-rate, any amount would do.
I'd structure it like this:
--Start with three password puzzles, preferably the more clever Super Password type (where they're a little like the board game Tri-Bond). Pay off, say, $500 apiece.
--Whoever leads at this point plays Cashword. Or, even better, Carword.
--After that, switch celebrities then play good old-fashioned Password until time expires (with the Tattletales bell sound, I hope). Either start each word at $500 and take away $50 for each clue, or simplify it and play a flat $500 a word. This way it's tense until the end, yet you can still end the game at a set time.
--Winner plays the Lightning Round for some amount of money. (They could use Alphabetics/Super Password rules, but I insist as someone else did that Lightning Round is the best bonus game name ever, so they've got to keep it.)
-
Wow would I love to see a \"Password\" revival. Now that is a classic show. If and when (I think it eventually will re-surface) it comes back I think it will be the most recent \"Super Password\"/\"Password Plus\" format.
Tim :-)
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 01:26 PM\'] Here's two more cents' worth.
Password isn't a game where the money matters that much. They used to play for $350, after all. As long as it doesn't seem cut-rate, any amount would do.
[/quote]
Money doesn't matter on a game show??? Gimme a break. It's not the only reason why people play, but it's certainly a major reason.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 12:14 PM\'] What makes $25,000 better than $10,000 for a show where there are returning champions?
Brandon Brooks [/quote]
I cannot believe you signed your name to that. I don't know how you did -- probably not that well, given the question you asked -- but I did get through grade school mathematics with well beyond a 'C' average. I'll take a game show that has returning champs and $25,000 for a bonus win over a show that has returning champs and $10,000 for a bonus win.
In case you need me to draw you a picture, a person could win $50,000 (or more) in two games with $25,000 for an Alphabetics win. It would take five games to do that under your scheme. Better quit before you cram your foot further down your throat, Mr. Brooks.
-
I have developed an actual projected format for Password, and have been able to host it invariably over the last year. Some members of this board and its' predecessors have actually had a chance to play it. (gasp!)
Here's how it plays:
Title: Password Challenge
Following the rules of the P+/SP formats, players still guess words to a puzzle.
Cashword is played for a progressive jackpot at the end of puzzle 2.
Alphabetics is progressive starting at $20,000
(end similarities)
Each word is worth points now. And the puzzle value decreases with every word added.
Words are worth 25 (single), 50 (double), and 75 (triple)
Puzzles start at 500 (single), 1000 (double), and 1500 (triple)
Oh, yeah, there's no straddling. Play is timed. So far, the record is 3050 for a game (recorded last week.)
Otherwise, the basics aren't tinkered with. And the single, single, double, triple(, triple) format attempts to make all the puzzles matter (which I know is a problem I had with both P+ and SP.)
Comments??
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 02:30 PM\'] [quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 12:14 PM\'] What makes $25,000 better than $10,000 for a show where there are returning champions?
Brandon Brooks [/quote]
I cannot believe you signed your name to that. I don't know how you did -- probably not that well, given the question you asked -- but I did get through grade school mathematics with well beyond a 'C' average. I'll take a game show that has returning champs and $25,000 for a bonus win over a show that has returning champs and $10,000 for a bonus win. [/quote]
Brandon is still right. A show that pays $25,000 is not a better show because it pays 2-1/2 times more money.
Shows aren't necessarily improved because of more money. Password is not a better game if it pays pays $25,000 instead of $10,000... As a personal note, I'd rather appear on Password for $10,000 because it might be easier to win than if it were for $25,000.
We're talking about making a show better, not how to improve the well-being of winning contestants.
-
I'll take a game show that has an interesting concept, compelling gameplay, and good playalong value before I care ONE WHIT about how much they're playing for in the bonus game.
In case you need me to draw you a picture, a person could win $50,000 (or more) in two games with $25,000 for an Alphabetics win. It would take five games to do that under your scheme.
Right. WHY IS THAT A GOOD THING? Why is that NECESSARY? Do you turn on the TV and say \"Wow, this person's been on the show for three days and he's only won $15K? I'm gonna watch something else...\"? Does it really affect your enjoyment of the show that much? If it does, you're beyond help, there is nothing I can do.
Better quit before you cram your foot further down your throat, Mr. Brooks
I don't think Brandon has anything down his throat yet, but I can think of an orifice your head seems to be rapidly approaching...
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 05:33 PM\'] I'll take a game show that has an interesting concept, compelling gameplay, and good playalong value before I care ONE WHIT about how much they're playing for in the bonus game.
[snip]
Right. WHY IS THAT A GOOD THING? Why is that NECESSARY? Do you turn on the TV and say "Wow, this person's been on the show for three days and he's only won $15K? I'm gonna watch something else..."? Does it really affect your enjoyment of the show that much? If it does, you're beyond help, there is nothing I can do.
Better quit before you cram your foot further down your throat, Mr. Brooks
I don't think Brandon has anything down his throat yet, but I can think of an orifice your head seems to be rapidly approaching... [/quote]
Prizes are part of what make the show interesting. They can help ratchet the tension. They can keep people at the end of their seats. That does not mean that everyone will watch a game show for that reason. As for me, it is a reason why I watch. It is not the reason.
As for the second part of your statement, Chris, my statement is a matter of my OPINION. There is no 'right or wrong' to it. If I played for Brandon's $10,000, do you think me so stupid as to say \"no, I won't want my winnings -- they're not high enough\"? If you think that, then you assume [assume = ASS/U/ME] too much here. You read too much into what I posted, and you are truly beyond anyone's help, let alone mine. If I needed help in finding entertainment, Chris, rest assured you'd be among the very last people I'd ask for it. All you know how to do is say \"no\" to people around here. You did it in ATGS, the old board, and now here.
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Negativity, if you think my head is approaching another orafice, then I'd suggest you clean your glasses, insert your contacts, or get some if you don't already have them. Your opinion of me (or anyone else for that matter) is worth about as much as the lint in my pocket, and it's not worth losing a second of sleep.
Now, enough of this crap. Back to game shows.....
-
For some reason, I've never expected you to be this testy towards me, since I haven't been towards you. But, suit yourself.
Prizes are part of what make the show interesting. They can help ratchet the tension. They can keep people at the end of their seats. That does not mean that everyone will watch a game show for that reason. As for me, it is a reason why I watch. It is not the reason.
Compelling gameplay makes it a little more worthwhile for me. More money makes a better game show not. See $1MCofL and IYCoaL.
As for the second part of your statement, Chris, my statement is a matter of my OPINION. There is no 'right or wrong' to it. If I played for Brandon's $10,000, do you think me so stupid as to say \"no, I won't want my winnings -- they're not high enough\"?
I never said that. It's the \"point of diminishing returns.\" Password would not be significantly better with $25K than with $10K. Of course I would take the money. Will I like the show better? Not really.
Now some shows need this, like WWTBAM? But shows like the $1M Match Game should never see the light of day.
If you think that, then you assume [assume = ASS/U/ME] too much here. You read too much into what I posted, and you are truly beyond anyone's help, let alone mine. If I needed help in finding entertainment, Chris, rest assured you'd be among the very last people I'd ask for it. All you know how to do is say \"no\" to people around here. You did it in ATGS, the old board, and now here.
Calm down. He was only reacting because you said I somehow didn't do well in math and I should stick my foot in my mouth.
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Negativity, if you think my head is approaching another orafice, then I'd suggest you clean your glasses, insert your contacts, or get some if you don't already have them. Your opinion of me (or anyone else for that matter) is worth about as much as the lint in my pocket, and it's not worth losing a second of sleep.
The only real negative one in this thread for you for trying to insult me when I didn't insult you. Everything else is reactionary. But of course \"sticks and stones.\"
Now, enough of this crap. Back to game shows.....
We weren't talking about game shows? I know I was.
Brandon Brooks
-
the $1M Match Game
Stoooppp!!! [throws head against padded walls and screams]
Can't we just end this flame war already? Lemme give you a happy medium. $20,000. There.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 07:43 PM\'] Can't we just end this flame war already? Lemme give you a happy medium. $20,000. There. [/quote]
Agreed. $20,000 seems nice. If you win 5 straight days that's $100 grand. Not a bad amount compared to game shows nowdays. Wheel has a $100K space. 5-day champs on J! and H2 win up to $100K. Family Feud has 5-time champs that can win up to $100K over 5 days. $20K seems good for a bonus round.
If you don't agree, let's go back to school. $x. Done.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 04:11 PM\'] Prizes are part of what make the show interesting. They can help ratchet the tension. They can keep people at the end of their seats. That does not mean that everyone will watch a game show for that reason. As for me, it is a reason why I watch. It is not the reason. [/quote]
But you're still not explaining why a 25K grand prize is more exciting than a 10K one. All you've said is \"well, because.\" Which doesn't surprise me, because I don't think a convincing reason exists.
As for the second part of your statement, Chris, my statement is a matter of my OPINION.
So's mine. So's Brandon's. And yet with your \"foot in mouth\" comment you attempt to deny Brandon his. If you're gonna dish it out, you'd better learn to take it.
If I played for Brandon's $10,000, do you think me so stupid as to say \"no, I won't want my winnings -- they're not high enough\"?
But that's the exact argument you are making. If they ARE high enough, why jack it to 25K? And I'm not making an assumption, this is information based completely off of your own posts. Can't you even argue with yourself efficiently?
All you know how to do is say \"no\" to people around here. You did it in ATGS, the old board, and now here.
If that were the case, do you think I'd still be here? If you really feel that picked on by me (and I assure you it's nothing personal...I think about you and your opinion of me even LESS than you do of mine, rest assured), you should take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself why. Yeah, too much to ask, I know.
Now, enough of this crap. Back to game shows.....
Translation: \"I have to have the last word, and to ensure this I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing \"Volare\" at the top of my lungs, which automatically refutes all further responses.\"
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 09:29 PM\'] Translation: "I have to have the last word, and to ensure this I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and sing "Volare" at the top of my lungs, which automatically refutes all further responses." [/quote]
Actually, I knew you couldn't resist having the last word, so out the window goes your 'translation.' And actually, I had Dvorak in mind, but Voltaire will do nicely. If you want to think less of me, as I said earlier, more power to you. (I will admit it is fun to argue w/ you, sometimes. It is theraputic, at least for me, after a long week in the office.)
Oh, and to answer your question of 'why jack it up'? Because it's MONEY! Given the choice of $25,000 and returning champs (I never ruled out that last part) or $10,000 and returning champs, which would you choose? Would I say 'no' to ten grand? Hell no! Would I rather have twenty-five grand over ten grand? All things being equal, HELL YES!
First things first, though, and that's getting the show back on the air, preferably w/o the Pearson-style 'improvements' that took down Match Game, TTTT, and Card Sharks.
OK, Chris, your turn.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:04 PM\'] [quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 09:29 PM\'] "Volare" [/quote]
Excuse me, I meant 'Volare,\" not \"Voltaire.\" Actually, Voltaire is good for the mind, too.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:07 PM\'] Actually, Voltaire is good for the mind, too. [/quote]
I prefer Spider or Freecell myself. [ducks]
-
Actually, I knew you couldn't resist having the last word, so out the window goes your 'translation.' And actually, I had Dvorak in mind, but Voltaire will do nicely. If you want to think less of me, as I said earlier, more power to you. (I will admit it is fun to argue w/ you, sometimes. It is theraputic, at least for me, after a long week in the office.)
Whatever argument you have with Chris is fine, but you should answer the person that you decided to insult in the first place.
Oh, and to answer your question of 'why jack it up'? Because it's MONEY! Given the choice of $25,000 and returning champs (I never ruled out that last part) or $10,000 and returning champs, which would you choose? Would I say 'no' to ten grand? Hell no! Would I rather have twenty-five grand over ten grand? All things being equal, HELL YES!
Which is the definition of mo' money syndrome: the mo' money, the better. And for the game, that's simply not always true.
First things first, though, and that's getting the show back on the air, preferably w/o the Pearson-style 'improvements' that took down Match Game, TTTT, and Card Sharks.
If done right, Pearson improvements could work. At least TTTT lasted for a season and a half, and that was with a mostly hands off approach in the changing of the game play, IMO.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 11:28 PM\']
If done right, Pearson improvements could work. At least TTTT lasted for a season and a half, and that was with a mostly hands off approach in the changing of the game play, IMO. [/quote]
My definition of 'Pearson improvements' is any change to a show that alters the spirit of the game in a negative way. I particularly aim that at MG '98, FF '98, and esepcially Card Sharks. Feud has moved back toward what it it's supposed to be, and I don't have to remind old members of ATGS of the late and greatly missed Randy Amasia's complaints about that show under Louie Anderson. (Newer members of the group, contact me or another 'oder' member, and we'll fill you in).
And Brandon, believe it or not, I totally agree with you on TTTT. It's the only Pearson revival to date that they bascially got right, IMO. So far, it's the only revival I've enjoyed.
As for your 'mo money syndrome' we're going to have to agree to disagree in the case of Password. I don't have a problem with a $25,000 jackpot for Alphabetics (or Lightning Round or whatever name a revival gives it). There's a few Super Password shows on the trading circuit w/ wins in excess of $45,000, and I have a PW+ $25k Alphabetics win. Those were, of course, progressive jackpots that started at $5,000.
-
[quote name=\'PeterMarshallFan\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 07:43 PM\'] Lemme give you a happy medium. $20,000. There. [/quote]
Feud's current pot. That's a decent number.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 22 2003, 09:04 PM\'] Oh, and to answer your question of 'why jack it up'? Because it's MONEY! Given the choice of $25,000 and returning champs (I never ruled out that last part) or $10,000 and returning champs, which would you choose? Would I say 'no' to ten grand? Hell no! Would I rather have twenty-five grand over ten grand?
[/quote]
And as a viewer, who isn't going to be cashing EITHER check, I say again, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Okay, obviously, it's time for my lesson on Mo' Money Syndrome. Gather 'round, kids, Uncle Chris is about to drop some mad knowledge:
The production of game shows is a BUSINESS. This business is about gathering up pairs of eyeballs that can be delivered to advertisers. And, like any business, you want to accomplish this by spending as little money as possible.
So let's say that you can get X number of people to watch your show if you offer $10K in your bonus game. But you can get Y number MORE people to watch your show if you offer a bonus prize of $25K.
The question at this point becomes: If the prize budget cost per person (let's call it CPP) for X viewers is X / (prize budget figured on grand prize of 10K), then why bump it to 25K unless the prize budget CPP of those additional Y viewers is less than that?
The only answer for that is \"Because that bump in viewers allows us to raise ad rates such that it covers or exceeds the bump in CPP.\" And I'm telling you, in the case of most GSN shows, and probably in the case of most network shows, that ain't gonna happen.
Yeah, $25,000 is a lot of money, and it's exciting to watch people win it. So why not $50,000? That must be an even BIGGER rush, right? Damn, $100,000 must be positively mind-blowingly fun. Or...how about ....ONE MEEEEELION DOLLARS! 'Scuse me, I need to clean up.
The answer is simple. Because you have to stay within the CPP number given to you by your producers. And the difference in CPP between a $10K jackpot and a $25K jackpot, when compared to the increase in ad revenue, doesn't justify the expenditure.
So if you (and I don't mean you, specifically, JW, I mean the global \"you\") are going to try to argue that \"such and such show would be better with an X billion dollar jackpot\", then you had better be prepared to explain to me how that single alteration makes that show SO MUCH BETTER than it draws enough extra viewers to cover that expense. And I'm betting, nine times out of ten, you won't be able to do it.
-
(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details. First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.
Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game. I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show. There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away. In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock. For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement. It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation. Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted. This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return. Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.
Both PW+ and SP started with $5000 pots, with PW+ moving to a progressive pot toward the end of its run & SP having a progressive pot throughout its run. Putting in the dollar figures, and speaking for me personally, I'd be more on the edge of my seat for a $25,000 base pot (w/ $5000 added per loss) and a :45 clock than for a $10,000 pot (progressive or not progressive, take your choice) and a :60 clock. Not everyone would be on the edge of their seat as I was when watching them back in the day, but there ARE viewers out there who would be. I've sat in enough doctor's offices as a kid watching this stuff on TV in the waiting room to know this. Things might be different in other parts of the country, though, I'll allow. But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.
I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament. There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format. I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show. But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise. Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000. That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.
I'll readily admit that this is none of this is a sure deal -- and we'd have no way of knowing unless it was actually tried. We could also do this by going back and watch every single episode of PW+ and SP and note the wins in >:45 versus those that were between :45 and :60 and go from there. I'd do it myself, but I've got a disertation I've got to finish researching and writing. However, it would be fun to do such a project at some point in time in collaboration with others on this group.
Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought. But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try. I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.
Comments & replies?
-
(Uncle) Chris, you make an excellent argument for the business standpoint, but your excellent argument (I mean that as a sincere compliment) left out a few details. First, if you want to spend as little money as possible, in this scenario, you work the game such as to make ANY amount of money not-so-easy to win.
Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.
Let me try to make a rough sketch of the Average Osmond Pyramid Viewer (AOPV), in various alternate universes of differing amounts of prize money.
The $8.32 Pyramid: \"CHEAP!!\" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: \"They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them.\" A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money.\"
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: \"Ooh, nice, round numbers. Wish I had that much money.\" (Producers: \"The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.\")
The $500K Pyramid: \"Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost.\"
Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.
-
Except that the goal is not to spend as little money as possible--the goal is to make the most profit off of your show as possible.
Chris is arguing strictly the business perspective, and when taking that point of view, the object is to make the greatest amount of money possible. That's done by keeping expenses as low as possible while keeping revenues as high as possible.
Contestants want The $500000000000000000000 Pyramid. Producers want The 5 Peso Pyramid. Audiences are what make the prize money what it actually is.
I think this statement does a better job of looking at the whole picture.
-
Hypothetically, let's say a revival goes with the PW+ Alphabetics game. I've seen a suggestion in the past to drop the clock to :45 from the :60 used on the last two series of the show. There would be fewer winners, and therefore, less money given away. In such a case, I would suggest raising the money stakes to compensate for the time taken from the clock. For some of us in this group, this would be an improvement. It's kind of like betting on horse races -- when the odds are longer that a horse will win, the payout for betting on him if he does win goes up as a compensation. Taking this from the race track and putting it into a a game show perspective, everytime someone sets foot in front of the Alphabetics board, the show's producers are essentially betting on whether someone can give ten correct answers within the time allotted. This does add a new twist to the argument, and I'd be interested in hearing everyone's comments in return. Yes, I would respectfully and with much interest like to hear from Brandon and Chris on this point.
This example to me isn't mo' money syndrome. I agree $25K and :45 would be a nice trade-off. To me, alphabetics has always been rather easy. Sixty seconds for $25K for that bonus round? Uh-uh. Forty-five seconds for $25K? Better. Wins would be rare enough to be interesting to look at.
I base this theory on the short-lived $50,000 Pyramid, which reduced the Winner's Circle to $5000 per game and the $50,000 round-robin tournament. There was a bigger prize, to be sure, at the top of the pyramid, and I suspect it gave away less prize money in the aggregate because of this format. I also acknowledge that this is widely regarded as the 'failed' version of the show. But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
Speaking of which, this brings up another compromise. Do Brandon's $10,000 non-progressive pot for the show and have a tournament at the end of the season for, say $50,000.
That's fine, but I never said I didn't want a progressive pot. I don't think I do want one, but I never said previously that I didn't.
That, I believe, WOULD go toward making the argument that mo' money makes the show mo' watchable. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but it's a thought, and it's been done successfully before on other programs.
It's not a bad thought at all. A tournament of champions is always nice: good gameplay with people you know will get a glut of money. This is fine, but as an ongoing thing, I really don't like. That's why I protested so much against the $25K idea.
Chris, I don't know if there is anything I can say that will sway you in my direction of thought. But, dropping the insults and flames that get us nowhere, I found your challenge worth a try. I hope I made as decent an argument here as you made in your last post.
It's appreciated.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 02:16 AM\'] The $8.32 Pyramid: "CHEAP!!" AOPVs run away in droves.
The $5,000 Pyramid: "They used to give away $10K and $25K in the '80s. Kinda cheap of them." A significant number of AOPVs tune out.
The $10K-$25K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round, familiar numbers. Wish I had that much money."
The $25K-$50K Pyramid: "Ooh, nice, round numbers. Wish I had that much money." (Producers: "The ratings only ticked up a hundredth of a point? Time to sell more blood.")
The $500K Pyramid: "Holy crap, that's cool! Too bad it never made it to air because the sponsors couldn't begin to cover the cost."
[/quote]
Robert makes EXACTLY the point I was going to respond to JW with: you make the bonus game harder to win, you are going to alienate potential viewers, which means lower ratings, which means less revenue, which means you need to cut your prize budget for next season (if there is one), which means A) the bonus has to get even HARDER or B) the prize has to lower. Either way, it means lower ratings....
To maximize profits, you have to maximize the simple ratio of (Ad Revenue) / (Prize Budget). Which means you have to find a number for that prize budget, along with a frequency of payout, that gets the most people to watch, because the number of viewers DIRECTLY drives Ad Revenue.
For the sake of argument, let's say that my 10K payout for a :60 Alphabetics and JW's 25K payout for a :45 Alphabetics end up working out to an identical total prize budget. (Because a :45 Alphabetics is harder to win, it wouldn't pay out as often.) You have to ask yourself if the extra viewers you turn on with your Big Money Jackpot is going to make up for the viewers you lose because you can only afford to pay out on it once every two weeks. I'm suggesting it doesn't.
But, the chances are we'd have more successful runs of Alphabetics with the $10,000/:60 set-up, but I'd also bet that less money would be spent overall on prizes with a $25,000/:45 set-up.
The only way this can happen, using your proposed progressive system, is when the 25K pot hits whatever ceiling you assign to it and nothing more is added to it for a while. Consider: 5K is paid out each time you both play, no matter what ('cuz that's the increment, it will be paid EVENTUALLY), and your seed value (which kicks in when someone wins) is two and a half times bigger than Brandon's, which means you has to go all the way to 50K (or whatever, God help you if it's more) without a winner that much more often to keep the two budgets close. Granted, it only takes you six plays (or more) to get there, but the point is that means that you can pay out on it even less often than you think, or you have to pull in that many MORE viewers to alleviate the added expense. By and large, a game show that can only afford to pay out their grand prize at MOST once a week isn't gonna be on very long.)
Also, to supplement Robert's point about setting the prize too low...frequency of payout works into this too. If the jackpot were $5K in 90 seconds, you'd turn viewers off as well. In fact, this seems to be one of the the big knocks on the new Pyramid, that the jackpot is given away too often. Certainly it's a big part of why I don't watch it.
But, I'll also point to the $100,000 Pyramid, which did not reduce the Winner's Circle for \"regular\" wins and added the grand prize for the Tournament of Champions.
Noted. But also note that a) during tournament weeks, there were no 7-11 or Mystery 7 prizes available, much less given away, and b) the Winner's Circle had freakin' impossible categories like \"Things That Are Etruscan\", which meant the Big Fella (if I may Cosby momentarily) wasn't gonna be given away without a fight. So if you figure the prize budget for the regular show was 50K a week in the WC and another $15 in bonus prizes (remember, they frequently gave away cars for the Mystery 7), then assuming the Tournament lasted a week (and that seems to me to be about right), then the prize budget that week only jumped about 35K. Now spread that over a six-week tournament cycle (I think I remember Dick mentioning that was roughly the frequency) and you're looking at a modest kick of 5K a week in prize budget - more than reasonable for a nighttime syndication of a daytime show. Hell, Match Game PM had that ten or twelve years before.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 12:41 PM\'] Robert makes EXACTLY the point I was going to respond to JW with: you make the bonus game harder to win, you are going to alienate potential viewers, which means lower ratings, which means less revenue, which means you need to cut your prize budget for next season (if there is one), which means A) the bonus has to get even HARDER or B) the prize has to lower. Either way, it means lower ratings....
[/quote]
Dude, I'm not sure where you're reading this into Robert's post. I didn't get that from his message. I'll give it another look, in case I did miss something.
In any event, I'm not sure making a bonus game harder necessarily alienates viewers. Making it impossible certainly would, which is exactly what they did on Caesar's Challenge, and the show floundered as a result. On the other hand, I'd argue that \"Wheel of Fortune\" has made its bonus round harder by making the puzzles more of a challenge (fewer RSTNLE's), and they also raised the stakes significantly. It's doing extremely well in the ratings, as it always has.
This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I'm not just entirely convinced by this part of the argument.
The only way this can happen, using your proposed progressive system, is when the 25K pot hits whatever ceiling you assign to it and nothing more is added to it for a while.
This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize. In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners. Take the progressive era of PW+ and SP. In essense, the money was going to be given away one way or another. Win the bonus round on the first play, get $5,000 (old system). Lose the first bonus round but win the second, get $10,000. Whether it's awarded as 2 x $5000 or 1 x $10,000, you're out the same amount of money. Actually, you're out more money in the case of the latter as you have a consoluation prize in the form of $100 for every answer that was given correctly. You could be out as much as $10,900 in the latter scenario as opposed to $10,000 even in the first. Let's say we do $25,000 (since we've been using that number), and add $5,000 for each loss. Lose the first bonus, win the second. That's $30,000. It averages to $15,000 per game, which is less than a single win at the top prize value. My point is that the amount of the raise in the jackpot for a loss changes the dynamics of what you're arguing. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I am saying that there's more to this than you've argued.
Also, to supplement Robert's point about setting the prize too low...frequency of payout works into this too. If the jackpot were $5K in 90 seconds, you'd turn viewers off as well. In fact, this seems to be one of the the big knocks on the new Pyramid, that the jackpot is given away too often. Certainly it's a big part of why I don't watch it.
You're not the first to make this argument and it's valid, but there are also those who have said the fact that the show has no returning players (save in the tournament), an increase in the number of wins is an acceptable trade-off. Naturally, not all viewers look at game shows under the microscope like we do.
-
It's appreciated.
You're entirely welcome. :-)
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003,12:40 PM\']I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound. [/quote]
Then you're ignoring a basic fact of real life, because in the real world, if it's not economically sound, you won't be watching it AT ALL. If you don't think economics weren't part of what killed Povich's Twenty-One, you're just not thinking.
This assumes certain things, such as the top prize being won on a routine basis or an automatic roll-over of the entire top prize. In fact, shows of this type might have a spate of several consecutive or near-consecutive wins, followed by a drought of winners. Take the progressive era of PW, and SP.
No, it doesn't assume that at all. I'll try this one more time, and I've pretty much said my piece on the issue anyhow:
Consider two scenarios:
1) 10K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.
2) 25K base value, increases 5K each time it's not won.
You're saying that if the game in (2) is hard enough, it will give out less money than (1) because it's not won as often. Let's look at them this way:
1) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 5K each time bonus is won.
2) 5K per attempt GUARANTEED PAYMENT, plus 20K each time bonus is won.
Let's take a 90 day period, and assume that the endgame is won once every third day in case (1). (This also assumes 1 endgame per day, we're not straddling here):
1) (90 * 5K) + (30 * 5K) = $600,000 = $200,000 per month.
Now, case (2), no ceiling on the jackpot (for simplicity), and we'll say it's won once every 10 days:
2) (90 * 5K) + (9 * 20K) = $630,000 = $210,000 per month.
(It evens out at 12 days for case (2), by the way.)
I'd say every third day is a reasonable assumption for most game shows. That means to afford a 25K seed, progressive jackpot, all other things being equal, your game has to be four times as hard, won on the average once every twelveth day. People aren't gonna go for that. ESPECIALLY if, as you say, there is a rash of winners. You get three winners in a week, you're due for a cold spell of AT LEAST A MONTH before you see another one, if you're not gonna break the bank.
\"But the jackpot will be up toa jillion dollars! It'll be great!\" Yeah, and then you get California Lottery Syndrome, where the viewers no longer care about those $35K and $40K hits, they wanna see someone win the jillion dollars, 'cuz it's been done before. But in order for that to happen, probability-wise, you need a string of crappy wins followed by a huge glut of bad luck. That's just not good TV. Wintuition showed us that.
-
Wow, I'm really surprised by the gathered interest in this post, this is something that I wasn't expecting, my next question about if Password returned, who would you think should be the host?
-
I think Tom Bergeron would be perfect as Password host. Does anyone remember how Ed McMahon handled the job after \"Snap Judgment\" assumed the \"Password\" format?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 04:33 PM\']
[/quote]
Then you're ignoring a basic fact of real life, because in the real world, if it's not economically sound, you won't be watching it AT ALL. If you don't think economics weren't part of what killed Povich's Twenty-One, you're just not thinking.
You and I are simply not going to agree.
Let me put my chips on the table, or better yet, throw them in the air for all to see. Twenty-One didn't last long because it sucked. People didn't watch it as a result. Advertizers don't want their spots they pay out the wazoo to buy airing during such shows because if they do, it's the virtual equivalent of taking money and throwing it out the window for the winds to scatter. I understand this part of your argument perfectly.
No, it doesn't assume that at all
I totally disagree. Don't forget that I'm an academic, trained (among other things) to examine an argument from every possible perspective. That means that I sometimes find in an argument a thread of logic or illogic that the original author of a piece of research may not have realized was in his or her work. I'm sure that you were not consciously thinking about the assumption that I found when you wrote your response. Nevertheless, I see it there. Obviously you disagree, but I feel I can make a case for my point that you do have that assumption present.
1) (90 * 5K) + (30 * 5K) = $600,000 = $200,000 per month.
Now, case (2), no ceiling on the jackpot (for simplicity), and we'll say it's won once every 10 days:
2) (90 * 5K) + (9 * 20K) = $630,000 = $210,000 per month.
If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place! We haven't even discusses salaries for the cast & crew, and I really don't want to go there. I'll make my point simply then: there's more to it than you're making this out to be! As I wrote last night, every game show is essentially the producers gambling that someone won't win. If they do, they have to pay out. A gamble involves risk. This is a risk that can be minimized somewhat, and producers are right to do so, but there are an awful lot of variable to take into account, not all of which can be controlled.
I'm not going to touch the CA Lottery Show. Texas doesn't have a show along those lines, so I'm not going to speak to that point. The 'Wintuition' example, I think, better fits the 'near-impossible-to-win' model we discussed earlier in this thread. Even a trivia buff like Catherine Rahm (of Winning Lines fame) couldn't win the $50,000. I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
Chris, the bottom line is that you're not going to concede to me, and I'm not going to concede to you. As a mutual friend of ours said in an IM to me, netiher one of us is wrong. We have different perspectives on this, and that's cool. Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.
G'night, kiddos.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 08:58 PM\'] You and I are simply not going to agree. [/quote]
Yes. If we can't agree on this basic point, the rest of the discussion is moot.
If $10,000 is going to break a TV show in a 90 day period, then that show probably shouldn't have made it past the network bosses in the first place!
That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny. I was pointing out how much less often a player can win the bonus game and still maintain the same budget when you jack the seed pot up from $10K to $25K. That's fine, like I said, it's moot anyhow.
I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow. :)
Thanks for the debate on this, but I'm ready to move on to something else.
My pleasure. If someone reading this learned something, I consider the time well spent. :)
-
I gotta answer these!:
That $10,000 difference had not a thing to do with my argument, which is apparently careening past your oh-so-well-trained scrutiny.
Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment. That's not to say that I catch everything. In our line of work, if you're going to criticize (and we're expected to), we'd better be ready to take it in return. I've got an article I'm trying to get published that got a great review at a conference but has run into some serious questions in the publication review process. Oh well. C'est la vie.
I'd love to have seen what John Carpenter would have done, but we'll never know.
And it doesn't matter, 'cuz everyone would just bitch that he got an easy stack of questions anyhow. :)
That, and he'd pull a Billy Crystal in the Alphabetics round while he was at it!
-
This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound.
Well, here's the problem. Chris (and Brandon and I) were arguing strictly about economics from the get-go. Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"
The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post \"more money for Game Show X would be good\" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought \"I like more money rather than less\" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. :)
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 03:44 AM\'] Furthermore, when we say \"bad economics makes for a bad game show\", we don't mean \"I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it.\" What we mean is \"they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last.\"[/quote]
Yes! Preach on! I like a 50K jackpot as much as the next man! I also like my game shows to not get canned in 13 weeks! :)
A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response.
Right, and what I've been trying to show is that the audience response in question needs to be significantly more positive than one might expect, unless you're the Number One syndicated show for umpteen billions of years, can charge so much for a :30 that you're hemmoraging money, and can get away with the occasional 100K payoff as a publicity stunt. (And as we've seen, more of those few people who are spinning onto that 100K card are losing it than winning it.)
Thank you for this, Robert. This summarizes my argument (and, as always, I use the word \"argument\" in the logical sense) PERFECTLY.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 05:44 AM\']
This argument has gone to strictly economics. Just as Chris doesn't watch game shows strictly for the prizes awarded, I for one don't watch a show strictly to see if it's economically sound.
Well, here's the problem. Chris (and Brandon and I) were arguing strictly about economics from the get-go. Furthermore, when we say "bad economics makes for a bad game show", we don't mean "I'm watching this show, and I know they can't afford this prize budget, so I don't like it." What we mean is "they can't afford this prize budget, so the show won't last."
The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post "more money for Game Show X would be good" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought "I like more money rather than less" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. :) [/quote]
Well, the problem I have Robert is... well, nothing.
That's exactly what I wanted to say!
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 05:44 AM\'] The reason we think this way is because the vast majority of people who post "more money for Game Show X would be good" honestly don't see why every show doesn't bump up its jackpot on a regular basis. A few, of course, are actually willing to back it up with hypothetical positive audience response. And a few, sadly, are expressing the thought "I like more money rather than less" as though it were some sort of blinding insight. :) [/quote]
If you're reading that last sentence into my postings, then you've misstated my argument, and I'm going to leave that where it is.
Economics is a big factor, I agree, but I've also contended (and still do) that there's more to it than economics. Frankly, through this discourse I've come to view producing a game show as more of an elaborate gambling exercise than anything else, but even that oversimplifies things. Truth be told, I don't think there's any single 'right' answer.
-
I mostly agree with Chris L. about not wanting game shows to get canned in 13 weeks, unless its something really bad like SHopper's Casino or CS2001.
-
First trip to the new board.... nice digs, folks. :)
Before i get back to the original topic here, i wanted to make one point in regard to the debate over Password's potential payouts: if the game seems too easy, make the words harder. Or increase the time spent talking with stars and players, reducing the amount of time allotted for actual gameplay. Less time for gameplay equals less time for winning money.
Things like that are what runthroughs exist to work out. I guarantee you, studio execs will have made it sufficiently difficult -- but far from impossible -- to take home the top prize by the time any proposal is ready to air that it will be highly unlikely that the prize budget allocation will be exceeded.
With that out of the way.....
-
Can I just say how much I hate the 4K post size limit? I can't? Darn.... oh, well.....
I've had this thing lying around forever; a few timing changes were needed to bring it down to a 19 minute format, but use in a 20, 21 or 22 minute version would require very simple changes.
Open (00:00-00:30) - Announcer introduces two celebs (with some identifying credit) who enter stage and walk to desk set; announcer says \"...and they're here to play 'Password'!\"; announcer introduces host who walks to center of desk set; end music; end applause.
Rules (00:30-01:00) - Host: \"Welcome to Password, the game where a little second-guessing can win big money! The object is for our contestants to guess the password with a little help from their celebrity partners. Our stars give the clues, and our contestants give the answers. Give the right answers, and we give you the money. In round one, we warm up with simple Password: our stars have three seconds to give a clue for each Password, and our contestants have three seconds to respond. Our teams alternate until one gets the Password correct or thirty seconds has passed. Each correct guess is worth $250. [insert name of celebrity 1]'s team won the toss; let's play Password!\"
Basic Password (01:00-04:30)
Outro (04:30-04:45) - Host: \"Time's up! At the end of round one, {insert name of celeb whose team leads]'s team is ahead, but Password Plus is up next, where the stakes are higher and it's still anyone's game. Back with Password Plus in a moment.\"
Break (04:45-06:45)
Tease (06:45-06:50) - Announcer: \"We'll return with Password Plus in one minute.\"
Break (06:50-07:50)
Banter (07:50-09:20) - Host talks with celebs about current projects, celebs introduce contestants; contestants give very short bios.
Rules (09:20-09:40) - Host: \"Time to play Password Plus! If our stars will switch seats\" [celebs swap partners], we'll begin. It's just like Password, but each password is a clue to a larger puzzle. If our contestants can solve that puzzle, they'll win another thousand dollars. Now that our stars are seated, let's play Password Plus! [insert leading contestant's name] was ahead after our first round, so [insert contestant's celeb here] gets the first word.\"
Password Plus 1 (09:40-11:40) - Play same as Basic Password until word solved; host notes $250 win for solving word, gives contestant three seconds to guess puzzle; puzzles have five clues; if puzzle unsolved by contestant with control after fifth clue, other team has three seconds to confer and answer to \"steal\" the puzzle and its money.
Outro (11:40-11:50) - Host: \"We've reached the halfway point in Password Plus with [insert leading celeb's name]'s team in the lead, but there's still plenty of time, and anything can happen! We'll be back for the conclusion of Password Plus and see who plays for as much as $25000 -- or more -- after this.\"
Break (11:40-13:40)
Contestant Plug (13:40-13:50)
Break (13:50-15:50)
Password Plus 2 (15:50-19:20) - Host recaps scores, reminds audience who had control before break, play continues from Super Password 1.
Loser Farewell (19:20-19:50) - Host: \"Time's up in Password Plus! [winner] is ahead with - dollars, so he/she'll be going on to play Super Password for a chance to multiply that total by ten, or [10x] dollars!!! [loser] won't be going away empty-handed, though, with a total of [y] dollars!!! {winner], decide which star you want to work with, and we'll be back to play Super Password in a moment!!!\"
Break (19:50-21:50)
Tease (21:50-22:00) - Announcer: \"Stay tuned; the big money Super Password is coming up in two minutes!\"
Break (22:00-23:00)
Super Password (23:00-27:00) - Gameplay same as Alphabetics; $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten.
Sponsor Plugs / Credits (27:00-30:00)
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 03:59 PM\'] I mostly agree with Chris L. about not wanting game shows to get canned in 13 weeks, unless its something really bad like SHopper's Casino or CS2001. [/quote]
What I meant, Zach, is that I don't want a GOOD game show to get canned in 13 weeks because they can't pay the bills.
A BAD game show I can't get rid of fast enough. :)
-
[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 09:09 PM\'] Super Password (23:00-27:00) - Gameplay same as Alphabetics; $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten. [/quote]
I was following you until this. Care to explain what you are talking about?
Brandon Brooks
-
Ahem.... that should read \"in =sixty= seconds\". Yoi.
-
[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 11:07 PM\'] Ahem.... that should read "in =sixty= seconds". Yoi. [/quote]
What's \"yoi?\"
Anyway, this is extemely problematic for an endgame total. So if I'm ahead $100, I only get the play the bonus round for $1,000? Goodbye.
Make it a flat total or a progressive jackpot.
Brandon Brooks
-
[quote name=\'YKW03\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 07:09 PM\'] $500 extra for each word of the ten guessed unless contestants finish the board in ten seconds; running board results in previous winnings being multiplied by ten. [/quote]
That reeks of way too complicated.
On the upside, props for timing out your teases to fit within the time constraits you mentioned. I checked a few and they all timed out to my read speed.
-
[quote name=\'Brandon Brooks\' date=\'Jun 24 2003, 09:17 PM\'] Anyway, this is extemely problematic for an endgame total. So if I'm ahead $100, I only get the play the bonus round for $1,000? Goodbye.[/quote]
No, he's suggesting multipying full frontgame winnings by 10. So if the front game winner winds up with $1675, then the bonus round is being played for $16,750. But I share your \"goodbye\" sentiment.
Make it a flat total or a progressive jackpot.
Preach it. 10K, kick it 5K for each non-win, that's reasonable. You can even skip the top-out at 50K if you like.
-
[quote name=\'DrJWJustice\' date=\'Jun 23 2003, 12:01 AM\']
Feud has moved back toward what it it's supposed to be, and I don't have to remind old members of ATGS of the late and greatly missed Randy Amasia's complaints about that show under Louie Anderson. (Newer members of the group, contact me or another 'oder' member, and we'll fill you in). [/quote]
OK I was looking up this post, and you can still color me curious. What did Randy have to say about Anderson FF? (If it's anywhere near his CS2001 complaints, watch out!)
J.