I'm just going to come out and say it: everyone who is claiming Check Game is broken is wrong, plain and simple. (There, I've said it.) If the only thing we could offer in the game were prize packages like the game room, then you might have a point. But there are less expensive four-digit prizes they could offer. This day's setup was a forced loss. Claiming that a forced-loss setup means the game is broken is, in a word, dumb. The fix of raising the range so they can offer more expensive prizes, as has been pointed out, wouldn't solve anything, because they could just set the game up the same way with more expensive prizes, and would create a new problem by making them play the game less, upping the frequency of the other quickies.
Plain and simple, your suggestions are poorly thought out and don't take into account the real-world business reasons the game likely works the way it does, or the second- and third-order issues your alleged "fix" would cause. Wins cost money, and there's only so much of it the show can afford to spend.
I’ve actually been thinking about this, and honestly, I’m not a huge fan of Check Game to begin with, because there’s little to no variation in the price of the prizes, which I enjoy in one-prize games, and when variation is introduced, the game turns into, as you say, a ‘forced loss.’ So maybe raising the range won’t fix it, I’ll give you that, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good game if there’s no variation in prizes. At least raising the range will allow them to offer $5,000 to $8,000 prizes, thus allowing for more diverse and thus more interesting set-ups. As it stands, they can’t really do that with this small variable range.
You keep saying this, I'm going to keep pointing out that upping the range means this game would start taking a (possible in the event of a win) larger bite out of the budget, both from the prizes offered and the cash offered. That sounds like an excellent reason to play it less often, or to set it up for losses more often, neither of which I want to see.
Actually, yes, I would. Why? Because both of those games, even if they aren’t great, have more prize variation and thus, more difficulty and intrigue to see if the contestant will correctly or incorrectly guess the range of said prize. Moreover, you’re forgetting that The Price is Right can and has created many new, fun pricing games to replace or update ones that have fallen by the wayside. I don’t want a game that’s only played for a $4,500-5,500 prize every single time it pops up, and a $6,000 prize is considered to be a forced loss, because I wouldn’t consider that to be fun to watch as a viewer, guessing the price with the contestant.
There's a fundamental flaw in this premise--namely that any new games would be as good/fun as the ones we have. Yes, they've had some nifty ideas in the past, but we've also had some real flops, like On the Spot and Time is Money I (and those are just the ones that have been retired). What makes you think any prospective new games they create would be more interesting or fun than the ones we have?
Why, in short, would you want them to take a classic game, play it less often, and then bring in another potentially off-the-wall idea (Rat Race) to replace it?
Because we think our fix would create a more enjoyable pricing game and thus, a more enjoyable show than we currently have. We are not making this argument because we hate this show and want to see it fail, and I don’t appreciate if you’re even implying that. We’re all fans of this show, and as fans, we have opinions and critiques that we put thought into and genuinely think will help the show.
"I don't appreciate if you're even implying that"--where did you even get that idea? Your "fix" might create a more enjoyable game and show than what we have now...
in your opinion. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. More expensive prizes means the game gets played less often, in favor of games that (at the very least) don't offer a cash bonus. That means more playings of quickie games like Coming or Going or Side by Side, which I don't think anyone really wants.
Do I think you're looking to ruin the show? No. I do think you're trying to fix something that's not broken, without understanding the (likely) business reasons why the game works the way it does, and the financial/business problems your solution would cause. "Solutions" that create more problems than they solve wouldn't "help" the show at all.
Forum participation is encouraged in general, so we’re going to make our voices known. If you don’t agree with our opinions, that's your decision and I respect it. But they’re our voices, and we’ll use them because we want this show to be even better than it currently is.
I want the show to be better too. But I also have something you apparently don't--an ability to recognize business and financial reasons behind why things work the way they do. And when you or anyone else post an idea that doesn't look like it was thought through, I'm going to call you on it.
My gut says that the range was probably only raised the last time because inflation made it impractical not to--it was either that or let "forced loss" type setups be the norm because of market prices.