That is the quest-----

Oh, right, OK. Maybe not this time around.

But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative questions we can ask - or rather, I can ask because they've just sprung to mind and I'm getting older so it's probably best to write them down in case I forget all about them (I enter my fourth decade next month, dear god...)

Anyway, on topic:
I've been thinking about this more after the discussions we've had recently on the Discord server.
No swap? Why not? What is it that stands in the way of the present series adopting what had become the time-honoured concept of the offer to swap boxes at the end of a show? Is it that The Producers (springtime for Hit---OK I won't go there) are trying to create something distinctly different from the original show, one part of which is the edict that the player MUST continue with the box they chose at random, come hell or high water? If so, why? What benefit could that approach possibly bring? Surely, it removes an element of high drama upon which the original show pounced like a hungry tiger, and which they correctly interpretated as a potential feast of suspense, tension, and entertaining television; this is replaced with a hefty dose of nothing.
Dare to be different, by all means - but when we dare to be different for the sole purpose of being different, we no longer dare.

Why else? Has it simply not been considered? Has the idea not popped once into the mind of anybody connected with the making of the programme? This, to me, feels difficult to believe, especially considering the eleven-year history of the original show, during which the swap featured very prominently in many - possibly even the vast majority of - episodes. Personally, I think this can be discounted, in which case somebody must have had the conscious thought - and that thought must have been dismissed at some stage in its development.

But why?

What could be lost by the introduction of swapping the two remaining boxes?
I would defer, of course, on statistical matters to those whose track records speak for themselves in that department - of whom I am not, have never been, and may never be one - but to my relatively untrained eye, it would appear that nothing is lost when the swap is involved. There remains an equal chance that the player will win either of the two amounts on the gameboard (although I know Monty Hall had something to say about that!) and even if the likelihood is increased that they'll go away with the higher amount, is that really anything more than negligible in the grand scheme of things? Will that make a difference between the budget staying nice and healthy or being hit with a sledgehammer once in a while?
(Again, I don't know mathematically what I'm talking about, so I absolutely welcome correction or better advice if it turns out that I'm talking absolute nonsense! )

In the event that there is no great drawback to having the offer of a swap, and there appears only to be the benefit of gripping, dramatic, exciting television - which can only be a boon to the show's chances of continuing ad infinitum - as well as the player knowing that if the box they wish to have, they will be permitted to have...why not?

My own ad-hoc, unplanned style comes back to bite me here because I'd forgotten perhaps the most important point until just a moment ago: the player's choice.
I don't believe in fate. I don't believe in karma. I don't believe that because a person draws a picture in which a certain box contains the jackpot, it must follow that the jackpot is in that box. I don't particularly feel respect for the reasoning of those who do believe in such things.
But if a player has their eyes on this one box, and they leave it to the end of the game, and the jackpot happens to remain in live play - or any amount for that matter, the figure is completely irrelevant - is it not only fair that they ought to have the choice to select that box, as their own, if they wish? Surely it is demonstrably unfair to deny them that option, after all! The player is gaining nothing in real terms by doing so, there is no advantage to be ceded to one side, no disadvantage to be inflicted upon the other. It is a straight swap. It seems to me only democratic, then, that the freedom to choose should lie with the player at this stage.

I'm happy to acknowledge my earlier position was more along the lines of, 'well, this is all a bit of an overreaction, guys, don't we think?', and upon further reflection I feel much more strongly aligned with the other views expressed that, actually, it really is an issue that the swap is a non-entity in this show. I'm sure I haven't written nearly as much as I'll remember later that I could've written, but you've got to stop somewhere, so I think I will here!

Ultimately, if one is on the side of fairness and - without wishing to be too dramatic - democratic choice, the swap surely represents the epitome of these principles, and its absence an alarming lack thereof.
Oh, and it makes for slightly more boring viewing than needs to be the case...when the solution is simple, why not reach for and implement it?
I still haven't got a clue, maybe someone else can enlighten me.

I assume they realised the later shows in the Edmonds era got relatively complex with the offer prediction and offer button, not to mention the other stuff that was introduced earlier such as the Banker's Gamble, twists during special weeks, other random occasional twists and, of course, the swap. It seems they wanted to strip the game back to its most basic original format for this new version.

I'm sure the swap appeared very early on in the Edmonds era, possibly within the first batch of 66 episodes, so I thought by now in this new era they'd have at least brought in the swap and possibly the BG. They even seem reluctant to let the player speak to the banker, despite a couple of occasions where the player hinted or asked outright if they could. On the other hand I think the first player to speak to the banker in the Edmonds era was, like the swap, very early on.

They never mention the date in this new version, so that means themed weeks for Christmas etc. probably can't be done either. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if they also stick to the basics in gameplay terms and never introduce the swap and so on.

It really rubs me the wrong way that the swap is never offered. It wouldn't be so bad if it was like most of the international versions where you choose your box at the beginning anyway, but with it selected at random for you, IMO anyone who wants to should absolutely have the opportunity to swap it at the end.

That said, with how absurdly over-generous late game offers are in this game, the amount of times it's even relevant is low. Most players that played to the end has done so via a train wreck leaving them with an all blue finish, where swaps weren't always offered in the original version either for fear of it being seen as 'salt in the wound'. But when there are reds involved and especially in Dori's game the lack of swap offer stuck out like a sore thumb.

My best guess is that they're taking the 'keep things simple' approach a step too far. On the original version the swap offer was there from day 1 for anyone who played to the end which makes its absence here even more glaring.

At the earliest opportunity there could be, the first player who no dealt to the end (aka pLaYeD tHe gAmE) which was in the first week. Don't think it was a particularly dramatic final two either.



Downright weird. It *must* have been brought up by at least James, which was the prime candidate for swap/hypo swap/mind games swap territory ever. In the original series he'd have been offered the swap in round 1. Hell if it was, say, December 2005, he may have got a Round 1 swap offer.

In a sense, the Omertà on the swap is an (unintentional?) remnant of the show's original 'death cult' vibe.

Spot on! Episode number 6, 5 November 2005, Oli. Very interesting, watching his show back on YouTube, the reception the offer had at the time - it's the Banker trying to play mind games, being a 'little tinker' as Oli put it, and the audience react as if the concept had genuinely never crossed their minds until that moment! Oli remarks 'I would NEVER swap - me and my box have been through a lot!' to raucous cheering and applause...

Just seen this thread and feel it's especially relevant to what happened yesterday. The swap was always guaranteed on ANY finish with the jackpot no matter what the other value was! Now it can never be won if you don't pick it at random. Not that Nay Nay would have done I highly doubt!

(And Suzanne DID swap on the equivalent finish in 2011 so I know it's rare but could happen).