Studio 33 - Price is Right Discussion > The TALK Is Right

Potential for certain pricing games to become endangered...

(1/3) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: illustriousrocket on May 03, 2024, 08:38:14 PM ---a $600 scale and 25% winning range within that feels, to me, too narrow.
--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Nick on May 03, 2024, 10:14:31 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page