Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: New menu?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    353

    New menu?

    Seen a new Gamesnet menu. Not much of interest - that answer 16 questions and win a tenner thing lol. Spoilers kick in around question 4...
    Looks like Pointless and 100 to 1 have gone though I can't be sure.
    This should make the whole machine pretty obsolete soon. People played Pointless, even on a 50p jackpot it passed the time.

  2. #2
    Senior Member BFK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anywhere In The UK
    Posts
    3,199
    Are you guys still making money on quiz machines?
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJK5j5OZzKk[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kutE24zF56U[/url]

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    202
    Still a few of us battling on,BFK,difficult to say how many.All of us I suspect having to travel more often and making less than we used to.How is life in the bandit world?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    202
    To return to paragoon's post - I have seen a few of these now.I was concerned that we wouldn't get an issue 35 but as cool correctly predicted on another thread,we have done.The new games are what looks like a new version of Tri towers (I never play those games so can't comment),Golden Gloves,Formula Win and Who wants to win a tenner (think that's its name).
    I don't know if the Golden Gloves game is a brand new one as there has been a game with that title before but it's similar to Golden Boot but with lots of boxing questions.An interesting idea but
    I found Golden Boot near impossible to win money off,this looks the same.
    I like Formula Win so I'm pleased to see this also on Gamesnets on Iquests.
    I also like the idea of Who wants to be a tenner in that it's a simple game where you don't have to answer that many questions to win the jackpot.I have been suggesting on here that they bring a game out like that.I also was amused that in the blurb about the game,it said that in other games you have to answer an excessive number of questions to win a jackpot of diddly squat.However,16 is still an excessive number in my opinion if spoilers are going to kick in early like paragoon said.Given that you win a pound if you get to 8 or 9 questions (can't remember which) and then three quid for a couple of questions more,I suspect that what will happen with this game is that every so often someone will win a quid or three,and it'll almost never be paying out the tenner.Perhaps it would have been better to offer no smaller prizes along the way,therefore making the jackpot more available.I've only had a few games so far so I may be wrong but that is my initial assessment.
    Good to see something new happening at the very least.
    Last edited by muddle; 12-11-2016 at 10:35 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    202
    To return to paragon's post - I have seen a few of these now.I was concerned that we wouldn't get an issue 35 but as cool correctly predicted on another thread,we have done.The new games are what looks like a new version of Tri towers (I never play those games so can't comment),Golden Gloves,Formula Win and Who wants to win a tenner (think that's its name).
    I don't know if the Golden Gloves game is a brand new one as there has been a game with that title before but it's similar to Golden Boot but with lots of boxing questions.An interesting idea but.I found Golden Boot near impossible to win money off,this looks the same.
    I like Formula Win so I'm pleased to see this also on Gamesnets on Iquests.
    I also like the idea of Who wants to be a tenner in that it's a simple game where you don't have to answer that many questions to win the jackpot.I have been suggesting on here that they bring a game out like that.I also was amused that in the blurb about the game,it said that in other games you have to answer an excessive number of questions to win a jackpot of diddly squat.However,16 is still an excessive number in my opinion if spoilers are going to kick in early like paragoon said.Given that you win a pound if you get to 8 or 9 questions (can't remember which) and then three quid for a couple of questions more,I suspect that what will happen with this game is that every so often someone will win a quid or three,and it'll almost never be paying out the tenner.Perhaps it would have been better to offer no smaller prizes along the way,therefore making the jackpot more available.I've only had a few games so far so I may be wrong but that is my initial assessment.
    Good to see something new happening at the very least.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BFK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anywhere In The UK
    Posts
    3,199
    The bandit world isn't much different muddle. Unless on something fresh it's tough times. Although at least the jackpot is always a ton in our game even if on many games it's never achievable unless an all out brute force yields it.

    Must be frustrating in ur game with many games just offering money back as abig reward!!
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJK5j5OZzKk[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kutE24zF56U[/url]

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    353
    Hmm. Saw another one updated yesterday with Pointless still on it. Now I'm confused!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    202
    Pointless is still there on all the updated machines I've encountered so far,paragoon.They'd be pretty daft to get rid of that given how popular it is.It still should be on the front screen really.There was the odd gamesnet knocking around that didn't have it on before - you probably came across one of those in the first instance.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    264
    What about 1v100 ?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    353
    Quote Originally Posted by muddle View Post
    Pointless is still there on all the updated machines I've encountered so far,paragoon.They'd be pretty daft to get rid of that given how popular it is.It still should be on the front screen really.There was the odd gamesnet knocking around that didn't have it on before - you probably came across one of those in the first instance.
    Nah, it was a machine that definitely had it on before. Maybe I just didn't see it on the second page?! Anyway, apologies to one and all, seems I jumped the gun!

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by wires74 View Post
    What about 1v100 ?
    1 v 100 still there,I'm pretty sure.Though apart from that 1966 game,I couldn't work out what else had gone.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,409
    Thanks Muddle. It's nice to know I don't always talk out of my arse. The Government is looking into gambling again, primarily advertising, online and roulette machines in the near future (possibly SWP's to a small extent) and as the wheels of parliament turn slowly it's likely we will be in for a barren wilderness for the next couple of years before hopefully the Gambling Commissions chokehold on game development is released. I would strongly advise who is interested to phone them. You will have a surreal conversation and not have a single question answered. As for the bookies having the crack cocaine of gambling machines in their establishments what are the employees of the Gambling Commission on? Too much caffeine?

  13. #13
    Can I ask a silly question, why were the SWPs always set around 40% - any historic reason or was it a costing basis?

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    264
    cheers muddle think another game that has gone is the one with Frankenstein and Dracula on it cant think what the game is called but it is pants

  15. #15
    Senior Member Nil Satis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by topcat View Post
    Can I ask a silly question, why were the SWPs always set around 40% - any historic reason or was it a costing basis?
    I guess the fundamental reason is that SWP games offer a lot more playing time for each credit, so they need to take a much higher percentage of the stake to be worthwhile. A fruit machine will use up most credits in a second or two, whereas any decent SWP game should provide a minimum of a minute's play.

    The key point for me about SWPs is that for pubs they have never been wholly about making money - I have always classed them alongside things like pool tables and dart boards in that they are social facilities. If you have a pub that isn't very big and is likely to be busy most nights, a pool table or dart board is going to take up a lot of space that could otherwise be filled with tables or simply people standing to drink. However in the majority of pubs where that isn't the case, having these additional facilities is a way of getting people through the doors in the first place and then keeping them there. A decent SWP game should be like that - it should, at least in theory, be sociable in that it provides a group of people the opportunity for each one to contribute something.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •