Potential for certain pricing games to become endangered...

[tpirfansince1972]

With inflation at an all time high, I wonder if this could negatively impact certain pricing games on the show, specifically certain grocery item games.

Back in 1989, Grocery Game's range was raised from $6.75 - $7.00 up to $20.00 - $21.00 and more recently, $20.00 - $22.00.

It seems like it would be and is more challenging to make that game work.  For this current season, according to tpirstats.com, Grocery Game has been played 9 times and has a 4 win 5 loss record.

Check-Out is another game which I love but am concerned could be affected negatively.  The range started at 50 cents when the game debuted in 1982.  It was raised to $1.00 in 1996 (14 years after the debut) and then just 7 years later it was raised to a $2.00 range and has remained as such since 2003.  According to tpirstats.com, Check-Out has been played 10 times this season with a 3-3 record.  According to priceisrightfandom.com, when Check Out debuted in 1982, Bob was concerned that the 50 cent range was too small, yet 80 percent of the time the game was won.  Now it is at 50 percent for this season.

Bullseye on the other hand has an almost perfect record 9-1 this season and an 8-2 record from season 51..  Could it be that inflation has made this game too easy?  Might they need to up the ranges on the game board from $3 to $18 or more?

With bonus prizes used in these games also being more expensive, I would imagine the network and the show want these games to be won, but not necessarily at a super high percentage.  I am guessing if the show is not in budget mode, Bullseye would be used in lieu of the much more challenging Grocery Game or Check-Out.

Your thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[JT]

I don't think any of these classic games risk being endangered.  Often, the show can make the games easier or harder based on the prices of the grocery items.  The only game that I feel became too difficult and less fun is Grocery Game.  It's hard to do math in your head when you are on TV but it's a lot harder now vs. when the grocery items were all under $1.20 and everyone knew chewing gum or a candy bar was 25 cents. Today's contestants also seldom use the strategy of selecting higher priced groceries at the beginning of the game and then close in on the $20-$22 range with the lower priced item(s).

[illustriousrocket]

This may be a somewhat controversial one, but I've been thinking for a while that Range Game could use a modification similar to Card Game's.

I know it's not a grocery-type game, but with the prizes reaching into the high-four/low-five digit territory, a $600 scale and 25% winning range within that feels, to me, too narrow. When I suggest looking to Card Game for inspiration, I mean the way the starting bid fluctuates now. Have the price range of the scale change depending on the prize, instead of being a fixed amount, and adjust the percentage of the scale the Rangefinder covers accordingly.

[Nick]

a $600 scale and 25% winning range within that feels, to me, too narrow.

I wouldn't call it narrow, but $150 range on a $600 scale with today's prices is pretty ridiculous.

But the reason why it won't be changed is that Range Game is not setup nor played as a game of pricing but as a game of patience.  If they want a win, the price will be nearer the middle of the board.  If they don't, it'll be closer to the extremities; and even then, when was the last time the price appeared in the first $150 or last $150 range of the scale?  When was the last time a contestant stopped the Range Finder in either of those sections?

Most contestants either:
- Try to cover themselves by straddling as much (usually around the middle of the board) of a price range that looks possible (often this will include capturing across a change in the thousands digit).
- Wait until the audience screaming becomes so intolerable that they press the stop button.

Now, if it was a $600 range on a $2,400 scale, then the game might be vastly improved in terms of playing it with an eye for pricing and not just guessing around the "likely" places the price is to be on the range.

[illustriousrocket]

But the reason why it won't be changed is that Range Game is not setup nor played as a game of pricing but as a game of patience.  If they want a win, the price will be nearer the middle of the board.  If they don't, it'll be closer to the extremities; and even then, when was the last time the price appeared in the first $150 or last $150 range of the scale?  When was the last time a contestant stopped the Range Finder in either of those sections?

I see your point.

Amusingly, though, this is the exact line of thought that got me to this point, too. When I noticed just how frequently the price ends up being in the middle - the green stripe on the board acting as a rough benchmark - I couldn't get it out of my head. I think the mismatch between the kind of prices we see today and the small window provided by the $600 scale is why it hit me so strongly.

[JT]

On Range Game, I've been saying for years at least make the Range Finder $250 and the scale $1,000.   The RF would still take up 25% of the scale but there hasn't been a change here in 50+ years!

[pannoni1]

The closest thing to a nice inflation-adjusted rendition of Range Game? The Showcase from the 1994 version, dividing the scale into TEN THOUSANDS. That would certainly come in handy if they played for cars (especially nicer ones on primetime shows), but since most prizes in 1973 were in the $600-$1000 range, they could easily just multiply the scale by ten for most playings. There is definitely a bit of skill between pricing something that's $4000 and $10,000 compared to say $7000-$7600. Just look at those first season playings of Five Price Tags; it suffered from the same mechanic about the choices being too close (often less than $100 apart, which would be today's equivalent of being less than $1000), but by the mid-80s, the prices became far enough apart that there was some semblance of strategy between the choices, and Range Game could easily make such adjustments by just creating new scales, with the $150 Range becoming $1500 on most playings (though if played for a car, I'd make the range $5000 or $10,000 if using the 100X scale). And its much easier to adjust the rangefinder based on units of ten unlike other units like JT described. Its basically become the "stop in the middle" game, and even by the mid-80s based on the Pluto playings, it was already starting to look that way.

[illustriousrocket]

<cut for length>

We're on the same page. I did have 1994's Showcase game partially in mind, too.

As I said above, I do understand the reasoning behind the function Range Game fulfills as it is now. I just view it through the lens of the question, "how can it be changed to require more attention to the actual prices?"

I think my suggestion of a fluctuating range coupled to an accordingly fluctuating Rangefinder could actually help the game fit into more situations, tbh. It's arguably struggling to fit just one certain group of prizes right now with the $600 range/$150 Rangefinder, but with flexibility it could theoretically offer virtually any kind of prize.

[PimpinJC]

$1 in 1973 (when the game premiered) is over $7 today.  Just multiply the range / scale by 10 and call it a day.  For close calls, either round every prize to the nearest $10 or do what is standard practice now and have the host make the call.

[illustriousrocket]

$1 in 1973 (when the game premiered) is over $7 today.  Just multiply the range / scale by 10 and call it a day.  For close calls, either round every prize to the nearest $10 or do what is standard practice now and have the host make the call.

This would work for me.

[StacksOfCash]

Bullseye on the other hand has an almost perfect record 9-1 this season and an 8-2 record from season 51..  Could it be that inflation has made this game too easy?  Might they need to up the ranges on the game board from $3 to $18 or more?

Bullseye record may also be attributed to the fact that if one played extremely conservatively, they'd still have a whopping 60% chance of winning the prize without ever hitting the bullseye - higher than games like 1/2 off, and almost as high as a Secret X perfect playing.

Personally, I think the hidden bullseye is unnecessary and should be removed, but I bet many would probably dislike that change.

[tpirfansince1972]

StacksOfCash, I would want to go back to how Bullseye was before, that only the arrow closest to the Bullseye would be eligible for the hidden Bullseye bonus.  I think that would be a fair compromise while also being a budget saver.

I do still miss the pull cards used that hid the hidden Bullseye.  Not a fan of the electronic version, but it is what it is.