Monopoly May Replace Iconic Pieces With Emoji Faces and Hashtags (cnet.com)

Hasbro, the toymaker behind Monopoly, is letting the public decide whether or not they should replace the game's iconic game pieces with new pieces inspired by pop culture and social media. CNNMoney reports: Gamers can visit the Vote Monopoly site and choose from more than 50 new options. The old tokens, including the thimble, top hat and Scottie dog, are also on the table. The voting takes place inside a digital house with shelves and furniture stocked with both classic and newfangled token options. Jazzy music plays in the background as you explore and take a closer look at the figurines. Some aren't too surprising. There's a horse, a sailboat, an airplane, a bike and a helicopter. Two of the stranger options are sliced bread and a fuzzy bunny slipper. Hasbro is offering up a number of tokens that may appeal to tech consumers. There's a cell phone that looks like it came out of the '80s, a television that looks very '50s, and a computer with keyboard that vaguely resembles the first flat-screen iMac. Internet denizens can also vote for a hashtag and emoji options, including a winking smiley-face, thumbs-up symbol, crying-laughing face and a Rich Uncle Pennybags version of an emoji face. Voting is open to internet users worldwide until January 31. The chosen tokens will be part of a fresh Monopoly game due to hit stores this summer, so think long and hard about whether you want to stare at a kissy-face emoji for the next decade or so. A special edition called Token Madness will offer the original tokens as well as the new winners.

Comments

By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[JonnyCalcutta]

Shouldn't really comment and give this article the air of publicity, but WTF? Perhaps they should change the name from Slashdot to 'things we read in the news section of our Hotwheels comic'. The headline isn't even true (except in the vaguest lying marketing bastard sense). Its the worst kind of 'regurgitate press release without activating brain' article.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[CRCulver]

Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.

Re: By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[joao.cordeiro]

This are the new times. Now, news promote products and facebook lies promote news.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[geekmux]

Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.

Speaking of change for no reason, if a game maker has literally been interviewing consumers for decades regarding changing one of the more pointless aspects of a single game, then I only have one thing to say to Hasbro.

Fucking get on with it already.

Their own actions define this change as utterly pointless.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades.

They have been, there are more Monopoly variants than Munchkin variants.

That said, Monopoly is a horrible game, and I don't know why anyone would play it.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[mjwx]

Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.

Erm... wouldn't it just be (yet) another edition of monopoly. I mean we've got Monopoly, Australian Edition; Monopoly, Southampton Edition; Monopoly, Middle Earth Edition; Monopoly, Bagdad Edition. I'm supprised there isn't a version set in Paris Hilton's colon (gord knows enough people have seen it).

I mean they've been milking different versions of monopoly for the better part of 30 years. Why is anyone surprised?

I'm certain the traditional version of monopoly will be around to see my nephews kids have kids to fight over it.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Provocateur]

vaguest lying marketing bastard sense

This item was regurgitated by a bot, as a matter of fact, and the fact that you suspected a lying marketurd means our work needs a bit of polish, so wait for RC 1.01 to hit alpha.

Not to worry, though it will still need input/posts from us carbon units long before we even think about 2-point-oh.

So, no, you're NOT part of the problem.

Yet.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, they haven't been thinking of doing this forever. They've actually changed it already. A few years ago the swapped out the iron for the cat.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[msauve]

"Monopoly is a horrible game, and I don't know why anyone would play it."

What's the matter, can't find anyone to play Candyland with you?

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[digitig]

Getting on with it would end the constant free publicity they get from talking about it.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's socialist propaganda. No really! It is!

But this AC at least thinks it's a decent game. Not as good as Top Shop mind you (no chirp-chirp shoes!), but it's ok.

Personally, I'll take the dinosaur from the new pieces. I usually play as the shoe though.

Re: By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to dissapoint but there is no such video. Paris Hilton does not have sex in any of her 'sex videos'. They are all clickbait scams.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Hognoxious]

When you post an assertion and a link it's generally accepted that the link should support the assertion.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[geekmux]

Getting on with it would end the constant free publicity they get from talking about it.

You're right. I overlooked the level of effort it takes these days to create a captive audience.

Perhaps the next board piece will be a plain rock. Of course the new limited edition #DaringHipster version will retail for $199...

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I have tried ironing with my cat, and I assure you this isn't a welcome change.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[hodet]

We bought the pokemon version of the game for my son. I played it when I was a kid and we thought it would be neat to revive it in some way. After playing a couple of games I realized that if you get Boardwalk and Parkplace (renamed Nidoking and Nidoqueen) in the pokemon version there is no way you can lose. Once you put hotels on these things you basically bankrupt anyone. I never realized how unbalanced such a mature game was. Anyway, to your point, it is a horrible game but the premise is good.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[coinreturn]

Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.

They already have changed the pieces. My set has wooden pieces, different colors and shapes. No scotty dog, top hat, iron, wheelbarrow, etc.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[unixisc]

Shouldn't really comment and give this article the air of publicity, but WTF? Perhaps they should change the name from Slashdot to 'things we read in the news section of our Hotwheels comic'. The headline isn't even true (except in the vaguest lying marketing bastard sense). Its the worst kind of 'regurgitate press release without activating brain' article.

In /.'s brave new world, emojis and hashtags are now what pass for 'tech' as well as 'stuff that matters'

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The assertion is true, and the link supports it. In "Early History":

American anti-monopolist Elizabeth (Lizzie) J. Magie Phillips, created a game through which she hoped to be able to explain the single tax theory of Henry George

That tax theory is a socialist theory.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I probably could not get anyone to play Candyland with me either. But Candyland doesn't even rise to the standard of "game".

Have you really never played a good game? I'd recommend starting with Ticket to Ride or Settlers of Catan (knowing nothing about you). But there are a lot of other options.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it's a fun enough passtime for like the first 30 minutes, until all the properties are bought up. After that, it turns into a pure grindfest for hours where there is basically no strategy or any decisions to make, just rolling dice. In this sense, it's a terrible /game/.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Solandri]

The new editors are much more... "active" about using slashdot as a blog, instead of approving user submissions. Of the 15 front page stories right now, only 7 are user submissions. The rest were written by various editors or their bosses (or their sponsors).

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[tlhIngan]

We bought the pokemon version of the game for my son. I played it when I was a kid and we thought it would be neat to revive it in some way. After playing a couple of games I realized that if you get Boardwalk and Parkplace (renamed Nidoking and Nidoqueen) in the pokemon version there is no way you can lose. Once you put hotels on these things you basically bankrupt anyone. I never realized how unbalanced such a mature game was. Anyway, to your point, it is a horrible game but the premise is good.

No, that requires a lot of cash.

You want the cheapest block first (the ones right after Go). You then build 4 houses on each, and use that to buy the next street over and exhaust the entire housing supply. At this point, no one else can build. When you acquire more properties on the second street, you build hotels on the cheap street and use the freed up houses to build. Repeat.

The cheap streets are where it's at. Park Place/Boardwalk can bankrupt you, but it's far easier to take the long strategy and buy up the cheap street as buildings are cheap.

If the statistics are right, Boardwalk/Park Place also don't generally get many visitors.

Re: By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing by the actual rules, a game shouldn't take longer than about 45 minutes.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Aighearach]

You can't consistently spew clickbait if you didn't activate your brain. I highly doubt this is from incompetence, or inattention.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Aighearach]

I have tried ironing with my cat, and I assure you this isn't a welcome change.

Petting the iron doesn't work that well either.

Been there, done that!

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Aighearach]

If you ever get a chance to play the game, you might be shocked to discover that taxes aren't a big part of it.

Which makes sense, it was intended to show the natural consequences of land monopolies.

You seem to be confusing the game the article is about with one of the games that inspired it.

Re: By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Aighearach]

LOL that's called a spam folder, try a torrent site.

But you're close to correct; none of the sex involves the colon.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The tax theory was advocated as a way to ameliorate the natural consequences of land monopolies. Specifically targeted for that. Showing those consequences is the entire point of the game. Convincing people that land monopolies are bad was the main motivator.

Re:By commenting, I'm part of the problem

[Aighearach]

Right, that's what I said.

We need a new "Community Chest", too

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

The new cards would say stuff like:

You fraudulently bundle thousands of worthless loans together and sell them as Grade AAA investments to the unsuspecting. Millions of hoi polloi lose their homes and retirements, and the country's economy is almost destroyed. Collect 10 Billion Dollars and stay out of jail.

And:

You purchase a thriving, cash-rich company with borrowed money. Use the company's cash to institute a stock-buyback plan to increase the value of the stock options you've given yourself. Ship most of the company's jobs to overseas sweat-shops, further increasing the short-term value of your stock. Sell at the peak, rinse, repeat.

And:

You inherit 20 billion dollars. Use your pocket change to buy a few U.S. Senators and get them to change the inheritance laws.

And:

You run a large corporation. Strong-arm local and state politicians with threats to move your facilities to another state or out of the country. Get out of taxes free.

I could (and might) go on...

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I absolutely LOVE the speed that this is picking up "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods.... Apparently there are a lot of mods here who've never watched the news.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Actually, I do RTFA]

These are actually the cards you would produce if you were updating Monopoly to the 21st century. The original Monopoly game was supposed to be a socialist propaganda piece, getting less enjoyable as one person started winning, and it being almost impossible to recover once you start losing.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[KozmoStevnNaut]

And there's a really simple tactic to winning almost every game.

When you start building houses, never upgrade to hotels. Only build 4 houses on each lot. Soon the game will run out of houses (the game is designed to have a limited number of properties, 32 houses and 12 hotels) and no one will be able to build on their lots, since you cannot build hotels directly. Ta-daaa, monopoly achieved.

And hopefully no one will ever play this shitty game ever again.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Actually, I do RTFA]

never upgrade to hotels. Only build 4 houses on each lot

You definitely upgrade to hotels. And then buy those 4 houses you just freed up for another monopoly you own on the same turn.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...

You set up a humongous Ponzi Scheme. It is about to bust. You have two options: (a) flee to Yemen; (b) apply for the Presidency of the United States of America

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Neuronwelder]

Well done NoNonAlphaCharsHere!! The word itself "Monopoly" consists of two words. Mono, meaning one. And Poly meaning a lot. And the game is centered on.. money!!

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[retchdog]

It really says something that Americans liked it anyway; even if someone doesn't like playing it, they enjoy complaining about it. It worked out to be a brilliant analogy, even if it sucked as propaganda.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be what zoning laws are for. I love socialism!

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives.... they are so much like the poor peasants who served under a king. They only know how to bow down and hope the king is generous, much like they do today, faithfully trusting large corporations to reward them for pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. Completely delusional, hence their predisposition to religion.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely LOVE the speed that this is picking up "Troll" and "Flamebait" mods.... Apparently there are a lot of mods here who've never watched the news.

Maybe those mods were ON the news.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Your family business goes under and you lose everything, because you're not "too big to fail".

Your credit cards are all maxed out and you can't spend another cent, unlike the government which can borrow from now to eternity.

You get a modest raise but only see half of it after income tax because you're still too poor to be in the 1% club where they don't pay taxes.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Hognoxious]

It really says something that Americans liked it anyway

It might if they did.

The commercial version is quite different from the original.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you already own all 32 houses.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Archangel Michael]

All possible by un-regulations under the guise of regulations such as "Dodd/Frank", and other such.

Personally, as a Libertarian, I am all for Corporate death penalty, and the criminal prosecution of CxOs and entire board of directors for violation of the trust granted to them by their stakeholders. We don't need regulations if we use the criminal and civil laws that are already on the books. The problem was further exasperated by the "solution" which was "hey, lets use the same idiots that got us in this mess to fix it!!!" (yes, bankers, congress, etc)

Instead of making things way more complicated than they need to be, lets just uncomplicate things and require people to do their jobs correctly. I am convinced that the complication of things is designed to keep the criminals out of jail ... "I didn't know", "Not my job", "Committee decision" should not be excuses to allow crimes to happen.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Archangel Michael]

Soon the game will run out of houses

This is socialism. If Monopoly was a socialist propaganda, it fails right here, because that is not a failing of capitalism (which would build more houses as needed), but a failing of socialism and "central planning" (YOU CAN'T BUILD HERE)

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's a really simple tactic to winning almost every game.

When you start building houses, never upgrade to hotels. Only build 4 houses on each lot. Soon the game will run out of houses (the game is designed to have a limited number of properties, 32 houses and 12 hotels) and no one will be able to build on their lots, since you cannot build hotels directly. Ta-daaa, monopoly achieved.

And hopefully no one will ever play this shitty game ever again.

Tried this tactic against my son. His solution was to buy a hotel for me. (My wife was used as an impartial judge to decide if this was legal.)

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[mangamaster03]

Please continue. These are way more fun. I laughed just as hard as when Calvin and Hobbes were playing monopoly. They made their own chance cards to. One of them read as "Defraud the bank. Computer scam diverse assets into your account. Collect $5,000."

Low numbers, but you get the idea. Chance cards really can spice the game up a bit...maybe they could bring about national disasters that destroy hotels on your property.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

As always, you misunderstand. The criticism is that the game is less fun to play the longer the game goes on.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Aighearach]

Well, that's always the problem with that sort of propaganda; most people want to win, if they only win 25% of the games they're not going to learn that winning is bad. The whole concept of that as propaganda is crazy. Yes, at the end of the game there is only one winner, everybody else loses. That only means it is viable as a game. Duh.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[ImprovOmega]

That's why one of our house rules growing up was "if you run out of houses from the set, fake up some more and they still count anyway".

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives.... they are so much like the poor peasants who served under a king. They only know how to bow down and hope the king is generous, much like they do today, faithfully trusting large corporations to reward them for pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. Completely delusional, hence their predisposition to religion.

Fair comment, but I'd say Liberals easily match Conservatives in their delusional trust in government.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[KozmoStevnNaut]

That's only true if you have unlimited resources.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[retchdog]

fair enough. that's still amusing though.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[retchdog]

"The only winning move is not to play." — WOPR, on Monopoly.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Ooh, that's actually a good way to avoid that tactic, I don't think there's anything in the rules against giving gifts.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Archangel Michael]

I don't know about "as always". I am one of those people who think we are better off without kings, because they always tend towards tyranny. I am also confused with "Conservatives" because I value the kinds of liberty they often claim (but rarely deliver). Likewise, I am confused with "Liberals" (though to a lessor degree) because I value the kinds of liberty they often claim (but rarely deliver). ;)

I don't faithfully trust anyone. Period. All that power the Liberals are worried Trump might abuse, is the same power that Obama DID abuse. They just liked his abuses of power (damn Conservative troglodytes!) Meanwhile, all the Conservatives are drooling over the idea of abusing all those same powers they were complaining about for the last eight years by Obama.

The game never changes, it is the same. You bad, Me good binary polarization. And like a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War, the only way to win is to not play the game. ;)

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, the only system that allocates resources according to scarcity by need is ... capitalism. By raising prices on scarce items, it promotes usefulness (and alternative) resources.

Once upon a time (briefly) Aluminum (refined) was very scarce. It was used in very limited ways, and many "rich" people bought all kinds of aluminum products because it was scarce. Demand increased and someone figured a better way to smelt the ore to get aluminum out easier, more efficiently, and it became a commodity, and all those expensive aluminum dining plates became all but worthless. Now, that it is used just about everywhere for everything, prices have started to climb (albeit slowly). Eventually, some other commodity will replace it (carbon Nano fibers/tubes).

All resources are scarce, until they are not. They they are not, until the are again. The world is more dynamic than a simple game can replicate.

Re:We need a new "Community Chest", too

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Capitalism doesn't allocate resources by need, it allocates resources by who's willing (and able) to pay the most.

Then let's replace Monopoly money with Bitcoin

[Applehu Akbar]

When you pass Go you would collect 1 BTC, with the current value of your stack of money determined by an extra roll of the dice. The Chance deck would include "Bitcoin exchange hacked, lose half of all money," "Civil forfeiture action, lose one hotel or three houses," "EPA closes down Electric Company," and "Intellectual property decision in your favor, collect 10 BTC." The Jail square would be replaced by Gender Change; if you land on it, you would have to replace your token with another token of your choosing, and the other players would have to just get used to that.

Hashtags?

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of the top hat, we get #PEEOTUS?

Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Jump the, Shark Fonzi?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, why there is not, a game today worth, playing. Degava!

System!

Making Strategy Game out of Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I made actually a post just some time ago about how to remove the luck factor from the Monopoly board game and make it into a better strategy game. The trick is that all players share the very same piece. For more information, take a look at my blog

I have played several times in this way, and it makes the game both more interesting and faster.

Monopoly ... STILL ??

[dehachel12]

As a hobby-gamer, I say: please get rid of this terribly designed game!

Re:Monopoly ... STILL ??

[Carewolf]

As a hobby-gamer, I say: please get rid of this terribly designed game!

It is one of the original board-games the precursor to modern board games. We might not want to play it anymore, but treat it with respect.

Re:Monopoly ... STILL ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Play Top Shop instead! It's crack. Especially after everybody has a few beers in them.

Re:Monopoly ... STILL ??

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. I feel sad for anyone who plays Monopoly and has never played Acquire, which is a much, much better game.

Asking the wrong question

[timftbf]

"Why are they changing the pieces?" is not the issue. "Why are they still producing this?" is the more pressing question. Are there not already more copies of the damn game available in charity shops (thrift stores for left-pondians) than there are ET cartridges excavated from the desert? Who keeps on and on buying new copies?

Played by the rules as written, it's a mediocre game at best. Played how most people want to play it from sketchy childhood memories, it's fairly dire. Either way, if you want to play boardgames with your family, pick one of the many thousands of titles available that are better than Monopoly. Even in mass-market stores, you can probably find half a dozen better than this. (Ticket to Ride, Scotland Yard, Pandemic, Dixit, Perudo, for common examples).

Re:Asking the wrong question

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Monopoly was not designed to be an enjoyable game, it was designed to show the danger of unrestrained capitalism.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but massive fail pushing pseudo-religious economic nonsense and rewriting history.

You did take Orwell to heart though. Just the wrong bits.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopoly was 'designed' to sell and profit from, just like any other game. It was from another time, and it is quite amazing that is still sells. Few board games stand the test of time.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they still sell it because, um, it stills sells?

Re:Asking the wrong question

[gosand]

Don't all of the variations have their own pieces anyway? I know we have two sets - one is a very old French version I found at a flea market which is really cool (my wife used to be a French teacher) and the other is a Simpsons version. I've played it with my kids quite a bit. I kind of think it's a great move for them to make all the customized versions, it breathes a little bit of new life into the game. It's more relevant to buy a monorail stop instead of a railroad, or Burns Manor instead of Boardwalk.

I fully expect that they will continue to churn out new versions all the time, for all kinds of things. They don't need anyone's votes, this is pure marketing. In fact, they are late to the game if they are just now talking about having a version with emoji tokens. Come on Parker Bros!

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why are they changing the pieces?" is not the issue. "Why are they still producing this?" is the more pressing question. Are there not already more copies of the damn game available in charity shops (thrift stores for left-pondians) than there are ET cartridges excavated from the desert? Who keeps on and on buying new copies?

My wife collects Monopoly games. She has about a dozen special editions that have been released over the years. She'd buy one of these if it was interesting enough.

And she can kick anybody's ass in the game.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[DerekLyons]

"Why are they changing the pieces?" is not the issue. "Why are they still producing this?" is the more pressing question.

Only to someone not stupid enough to already know the answer - because it's still selling in significant numbers.
 

Played by the rules as written, it's a mediocre game at best. Played how most people want to play it from sketchy childhood memories, it's fairly dire. Either way, if you want to play boardgames with your family, pick one of the many thousands of titles available that are better than Monopoly.

Exaggeration, hyperbole, and confusing a personal opinion with a law of nature... Man, you hit the trifecta there.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Familiar with Henry George? OP is actually correct.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[AthanasiusKircher]

Exaggeration, hyperbole, and confusing a personal opinion with a law of nature... Man, you hit the trifecta there.

Uh... exaggeration and hyperbole are the same thing. How exactly can they make up two parts of a trifecta?

Anyhow, this is far from merely a "personal opinion." Monopoly has been criticized ever since it was originally rejected by Parker Brothers for game play that grew too long and tedious. They only picked it up after it became a minor "craze" in the mid-30s. It certainly had novel elements that made it appealing, but that doesn't mean it also didn't have serious flaws.

Anyone who has played a lot of Monopoly knows a number of the major flaws for family gaming. But don't listen to me on this. Here's just one post which sums up a lot of the major issues:

It suffers from problems that most game designers nowadays try to avoid. First, players can be eliminated. This is no fun -- unless, of course, the eliminated player finds something better to do than play Monopoly -- and games are meant to be fun. Second, there is often a runaway leader. Someone can snap up a juicy monopoly early on, and that quickly becomes that. The rest of the game is pro forma and boring. And games aren't meant to be boring. Third, there is what's known to game designers as a kingmaking problem. A losing player can often choose, typically via a lopsided trade of properties, who wins the game. This is also no fun and negates whatever skill was required to begin with.

Oh, and it also takes a really long time to play.

This is hardly the only criticism of the game. See for example here or here. And if you want some more criticism along with recommendations for better, more engaging games, see here.

None of this means a given person can't or shouldn't like Monopoly. It just means that most people who spend a lot of time playing a variety of board games tend to think Monopoly has serious flaws. And if you're trying to meet certain common goals of family gameplay (e.g., long-term engagement for most people, avoiding long drawn-out concluding play between a minority of players that is exceptionally unlikely to actually change the outcome, etc.), Monopoly has only one advantage -- it's well-known. If you're willing to try out "new things," there are a lot of really good options out there.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are right that is exactly what the game was designed for. It just does a *terrible* job at that.

My games usually ended up in stalemates. As per the rules you need all 3 properties in a group before you can buy houses. So the mid game would drag out and out. After about 4 hours of going around the board with little change things get boring.

So parker bros is coming out with yet another edition of monopoly. Big deal. They have hundreds of them. http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki... That does not even count the 'usaopoly' ones.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[timftbf]

Only to someone not stupid enough to already know the answer - because it's still selling in significant numbers.

OK, sloppy on my part. More accurately, "why are people still buying this?".

Exaggeration, hyperbole, and confusing a personal opinion with a law of nature... Man, you hit the trifecta there.

No exaggeration. Are you aware how many modern board games there are in existence? BoardGameGeek have just over 88,000 games in their database. I will positively assert that pretty much any of the top 1000 ranked on that site are both objectively (for reasons other posters have covered such as player elimination, rich-get-richer, king-making, duration, shortage of meaningful decision points) and for the vast majority of people who've played them subjectively (more fun) better games than Monopoly.

That said, not all of them will be suitable to sit down and play with a family who have only ever played Monopoly, hence my suggestion for just a handful that are readily available in mainstream shops and are distinctly family / non-hobbyist friendly.

Re:Asking the wrong question

[KozmoStevnNaut]

No, it was originally meant to be an educational aid, with two different sets of rules (monopoly and non-monopoly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

clickbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Iconic brand x replaces y with z!

Slashdot Firehose

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone tell me how exactly does the Slashdot Firehose work?

If this story is marked "red", it means we as a community want this kind of news on the front page, correct?

A reminder that Monopoly is a terrible game

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasbro seems to have succeeded in persuading news sites to write just the kind of headlines they wanted, lamenting the "replacement" of the "iconic" top hat and dog with hash symbols and emojis. This is just another silly rebranding of the same old game, just like the countless other editions.

You might be interested in a long Imgur post entitled How to Win at Monopoly and Lose All Your Friends. It says that Monopoly was actually based on a game that was intentionally designed to be unfair and irritating in order to make a political point about the evils of capitalism, which is why many people play with house rules that make it more friendly but also drag it out into a tedious game of chance.

Re:A reminder that Monopoly is a terrible game

[geekmux]

...Monopoly was actually based on a game that was intentionally designed to be unfair and irritating in order to make a political point about the evils of capitalism...

Wow.

We should thank our lucky fucking stars this game came along to teach Greed N. Corruption a thing or two about capitalism.

I mean shit, I can only imagine how bad capitalism would be if it were not for Hasbro...

Re:A reminder that Monopoly is a terrible game

[TheRaven64]

You might want to read up on the actual history a bit more. Monopoly is based on a came called The Landlord's Game, which has two modes of play. In one, you won by constructing a monopoly, in the other you won by increasing the total size of the economy. The point was to illustrate how unconstrained capitalism would lead to monopolies and negative outcomes for most participants.

The modern version is a set of incremental changes to the 1933 game by Parker (later bought by Hasbro). This was a simplified version of The Landlord's Game, which eliminated the cooperative mode and left outright competition as the only objective.

Get off my lawn, stupid kids!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, do NOT replace the pieces. Emojis and hashtags are for fucking retards who don't know how to communicate properly.

Re:Get off my lawn, stupid kids!

[BenJeremy]

They aren't replacing the game pieces in the "standard" game, only some crappy Millennial "Special Edition" version.

The headline is stupid, and anybody who keeps repeating this news item and representing it as such deserves scorn and mockery.

Re:Get off my lawn, stupid kids!

[Oswald McWeany]

No, do NOT replace the pieces. Emojis and hashtags are for fucking retards who don't know how to communicate properly.

:-O

#shocked

Re:Get off my lawn, stupid kids!

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't replacing the game pieces in the "standard" game, only some crappy Millennial "Special Edition" version.

Snowflake Edition. Everyone gets their own special token.

Re:Get off my lawn, stupid kids!

[BronsCon]

I think you meant #triggered

The joys of solitaire monopoly.

[os2fan]

I really like the game. I used to play the solitaire version when i was younger.

We heavily modified the rules, so that you could have unlimited building, so eg a thousand hotels on vine. Ah.. that will be £1,000,000, and we'll build another 666 hotels there.

The solitaire version is that you 'play the bank', buy all the land, and then bill the bank for staying there. Kind of like the clintons, but it was long before them.

I don't recall the cat. It used to be a lever in the versions from the sixties. Forty years on, i can still write out much of the board, and the hotel and base rentals for it. Just a little wasted time :)

Re:The joys of solitaire monopoly.

[Anonymous Coward]

The solitaire version is that you 'play the bank', buy all the land, and then bill the bank for staying there.

In the way that Trump will bill the federal government for his stays at his own properties?

Re:The joys of solitaire monopoly.

[os2fan]

Think of it as Clinton's "win-win". everyone at the party wins, and the people who were not there pay. Super simple stuff.

Banking system explained in monopoly rules

[moeinvt]

http://monopoly-game.net/Class...

"The Bank never goes broke. If the Bank runs out of money, the Banker may issue as much as needed by writing on any ordinary paper."

Re:Banking system explained in monopoly rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew Quantitative Easing could be so much fun?

Re:Banking system explained in monopoly rules

[unixisc]

One could play the iOS or Android versions of the game, where the bank never runs out of cash

About the pieces, one thing I don't like in the newer versions of the game - where the car (called Prius in the game) is replaced by a cat. I wouldn't mind if the cat was simply added, but wasn't too thrilled at Prius gone

Also, the game itself varies the difficulty level by loading the dice: even if one manages to get all the properties, it can still take a while before an AI opponent is taken down

Monopoly

[Oswald McWeany]

I hate how Hasbro has a monopoly on Monopoly.

Re:Monopoly

[Shimbo]

Funnily enough, they have been busted for price fixing Monopoly. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/bus...

It is time to even out the odds

[Provocateur]

Time to even out the playing field.

Monopoly introduces Mr. Pink

It comes with a one-time use card, and when that card is drawn, mayhem erupts, peppered with gunshots and the constant wail of approaching sirens.

I suggest

[Anonymous Coward]

Little figurines of Trump, Putin, Obama, Meryl Streep, and Charlie Sheen

The dog should stay

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like you can tell the difference between it and Trump's hair anyway.

Token add-on packs

[ZipK]

Why doesn't Monopoly come with a starter set of four classic tokens, and then offer add-on token sets? There could be themed sets (co-marketed with McDonald's!), memorial sets, holiday sets, and rare Beanie Baby-like individual tokens that sell for hundreds of dollars in secondary markets. Has the owner of Monopoly missed the last 20 years of marketing innovation?

Re:Token add-on packs

[adosch]

RIGHT? Brilliantly put. I'm not a Monopoly purist, but I don't like to see things that aren't broke, get fixed to get new 'interest'. The nostalgia around the classic pieces can be passed on in terms of why they were chosen, what they are about, which are most popular, ect. Then it doesn't tarnish the original, long-standing tradition of the game pieces. Add-on's seem a WAY better approach.

I get themed version of a game from a marketing perspective, but then what do all of us consumers have in the end? 800 Monopoly game boxes high up in a F closet holding up a bowling ball waiting to crash on your head when you want to get the 'ROFLCOPTER-OMFGG-LIKE-EMOJI-#BLESSED' Monopoly version. In the end, they all play the same. I'd gladly use an overlay add-on, a new decks of cards and some new board pieces to keep in along with my ONE copy of Monopoly if I want to 'mix it up'.

Getting feedback

[Okian Warrior]

Slashdot seems to be pretty shallow recently, but at least they've stopped posting political troll-bait headlines. Those things caused a *lot* of toxic fights in the commentary. Slashdot popularity has gone way down because of this. Contrast with Hackaday, which had an editorial mandate to avoid political articles altogether and has largely weathered that storm fairly well.

It's unfortunate, because Slashdot has the capability to get user feedback on its product strategy, but doesn't. When you're running a company, negative feedback is like gold because it tells you where you can improve your product. Most companies struggle to get this sort of information, but slashdot could get it trivially by a) implementing a like/dislike feature that readers could use to inform story submissions, b) asking opinions in the polls (instead of the tongue-in-cheek polls that we seem to get), and c) actively soliciting feedback comments from people.

It's trivial to make a struggling business great if you can get negative feedback.

Hasbro seems to have this figured out. I was all set to be outraged about using emoticons for the new game pieces, but that page is actually pretty 'damn good from a usability perspective. It's simple, easy to use, pleasant to navigate... even the jazzy music is 'kinda pleasant. Color scheme is good, with high contrast. The interface is intuitive and explanatory, the scenery isn't too bad either.

While the pieces might be based on emoticons, it seems like they are simply looking at modern popular memes and not being driven by political correctness.

The Hasbro voting site is actually a clever, inviting way to take an online survey.

Much nicer than a table of radio buttons.

Re:Getting feedback

[swb]

Implementing moderation/voting on front page stories has been a feature request since forever and was always routinely ignored by the site founders and the lackeys that served them as editors.

The larger problem with Slashdot anymore is that it's run as tech-flavored general news site anymore. The only thing really going for it is its fairly unique commenting and moderation scheme, which largely weights the site's value as a discussion forum far over its editorial content, which is pretty much just it's near-illiterate summaries of whatever clickbait site they've chosen to link to as the "content."

It would just be nice to see a lot more technical content posts and less general interest content.

Sell 'em separately...

[Tomahawk]

Personally I'd prefer to see the original tokens being shipped, but sell new tokens to buy to use in the games. Maybe add some extras, but don't remove the originals. Don't really see a reason to change them. I wouldn't mind being able to buy extra tokens to use for current games I have, but I'll probably never not play as the dog...

Re:Sell 'em separately...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought all the tokens that came with the game were lame, and used whatever token I thought was "cool". My Boba Fett figurine saw lots of action in Monopoly.

Re:Sell 'em separately...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or just use your own? For those players who play a lot of Monopoly, where they might actually develop an attachment to a board piece, use your favorite little figurine from anywhere? I can't imagine (although this does not mean it's not the case) that people don't have some little bric-a-brac around that works for this? I have a little Evil the Cat figurine, an old wisdom tooth, a splashed bullet carefully pried from a deer carcass, a fortune-telling clam toy from Japan, etc. They just need to be different from each other, be big enough to see easily on the board without being so big that they consume an entire square.

The only good Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Korg MonoPoly synth.

Parker Bros?

[RoverDaddy]

Long gone. The toy industry has been consolidated into just a few giant players. Lego, Mattel and Hasbro are the largest.

No no no no

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Hasbro, the toymaker behind Monopoly, is letting the public decide whether or not they should replace the game's iconic game pieces with new pieces inspired by pop culture and social media."

Kill me now, before I live to see the "Kim Kardashian's Giant Buttocks" Monopoly piece waddling around the board.

Marketers: Ruining everything since time began.

That's nothing guys

[Anonymous Coward]

In just a few days, Hasbro, under the auspices of its subsidiary, Wizards of the Coast, will be releasing new cards for Richard Garfield's sacred game, Magic: The Gathering, which will include among other things, a legendary monkey, pirates, and horrifically a completely NEW WAY TO WIN THE GAME!

These alterations to what has become a classic after being released only a few decades ago must inspire us to revolt against their ways!

Dibs on ...

[PPH]

... Pepe the frog game piece!

Re:Dibs on ...

[The-Ixian]

I vote for Boaty McBoatface ... errr.... as that this?

Re:Dibs on ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Pepe the frog game piece!

There is a new Chance card: "Hillary Clinton decides one day that your game piece is racist. Go directly to jail."

please do not buy this game

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a shitty game that was never meant to be played. All it will do is make your family unhappy.

Hasbro should discontinue the game and try selling better games.

New Coke, anyone?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

You'll love it. This isn't a ploy to get you to tell us how much you love the old Coke. Drink our new Coke and love it. We're sincere.

New Coke

[Anonymous Coward]

EOM

Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Settlers of Catan is for nerds, Monopoly is for sentimentalist fools.

Monopoly dot com edition

[SuiteSisterMary]

I love my 'Monopoly Dot Com' edition, circa 2000; it brings back so many memories.

Yahoo! Geocities? Ask Jeeves? Excite@Home? MCI WorldCom? No Google? Good times.