BuzzerUK: Has The Cube Become Harder to Win?
The BAFTA award winning The Cube has reached the half way stage of their fourth series come tomorrow evening. Many viewers and fans have noticed throughout the current series that not many people are winning the higher amounts of money. With nearly every contestest losing a few lives early on in their quest to win £250,000. So we’re asking. Has The Cube become harder to win?
Looking throughout the first three series we see there is a pattern. The majority of games used for the first level (£1,000) were designed to ease the player into the game with nearly every single contestant beating the first game without losing any lives or losing a couple. Some of these games include. Time Freeze (counting to 10 seconds in your head), Calcuate (counting a total of flashing squares) and Reflex (hitting one of two pressure pads, within 0.5 seconds when one changes colour). These games were rarely used in the higher stages of the game with some exceptions. Direction (used for the £250,000 game as one contestant lost many lives the first time around) and Time Freeze (counting to 30 in your head) were classic examples.
It seems in the latest series the producers have used higher leveled games for the £1,000 level and added some new but tougher games for the same amount of money. Since we’ve had six contestants so far. Here are the £1,000 games they played, the number of lives lost and out thoughts on the game the producers selected for the first level.
Capture (Catch a flying ball, released by a machine into a container which is held by the contestant). Contestant lost five lives and had to use Simplify. This has been played before at the £1,000 and £20,000 levels. Since the ball is shot out from a machine. The speed of the ball travelling across the cube could vary.
Quantity (Whilst standing in the middle of The Cube, count the number of squares within a set time limit). Contestant lost three lives. This game has been played at the £20,000 level where you had 10 seconds to count the squares. The £1,000 level extended the time limit to 12 seconds but the total of squares the contestant had to count and guess correctly were 37 squares. Quanity can be used as an entry level game but it would suit if the number of squares were lower. Preferably around the 20-30 figure. We felt 37 squares were a high amount to count just to win £1,000.
Stop Zone (A blue wave will fill The Cube’s floor. Hit the button to stop the wave between two markers. The wave will disappear half way along). Contestant lost two lives. Stop Zone has been played at the same level and nothing has dramatically changed.
Response (A red square will move across the floor of The Cube. Once the square turns from red to blue, you must press the button and react within 0.35 seconds). Contestant lost three lives. Given this is a new game. We felt reacting within 0.35 seems a stretch to win £1,000. Since Reflex is done slightly similar (pressing a pressure pad with your foot) but you had to react within 0.5 seconds.
Eliminate (Contestant has ten seconds to hit 45 lights within ten seconds on a smaller cube inside The Cube). Contestant lost no live. Another new game. The contestant completed the game with two seconds to spare.
Trail (Four sections of The Cube’s floor are flashing red and blue in a constant rhythm. This is done one by one. Contestant must press the button when the section is turned blue. If done so the next section will be at a faster pace). Contestant lost four lives and had to use Simplify. The key to the game is to keep a rhythm but the contestant were doing that. Cameras showed her hands were shaking when attempting to press the button for the fourth time). Although it can be done. The speed of the final flashing section seemed very fast it was more of second guessing when to hit the button. We assume the sections doubled the speed each time the previous one was pressed in time. This would make the fourth section flashing at sixteen times faster then the first one.
Since some of these earlier games have had contestants losing a number of lives. This produced a chain reaction with the contestants being cautious with the higher amounts and risks on the money ladder. This has resulted with only person from the first six contestants winning £50,000 (the guy who played Eliminate and two people being defeated by The Cube and leaving with nothing.
We have also looked into the series averages by contestant winnings. The current contestant average for this series so far is £16,667. Compared to the first three series with £24,769, £26,000 and £24,667 respectfully. As you can see, this is over £8,000 lower compared to the first three series. We also observed that since the £100,000 was won by a member of the public in 2010. There have been thirty contestants who have yet to win six figures. Although Tom Fletcher won £100,000 on a celebrity special earlier this year. Nobody has won £100,000 since the second series in 2010. Given nobody has yet to attempt to beat The Cube by risking £100,000 and the games have become harder at the £1,000 level. It does ask the question why the show has become harder to win. Here are our theories to why this is the case.
The Cube’s longevity
Previous history shows where game shows has a top prize which isn’t easy to win. The ratings start to fall once the top prize has been won for the first time. This applied in 2000 when Judith Keppel win £1 Million on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and in 2007 where Laura Pearce won £250,000 on Deal or No Deal. By having viewers watching each week, the core viewers won’t turn off until the quarter million has been won. The reverse effect can happen where viewers could switch off as some can become bored if it will never have a top prize winner.
More episodes per year
2011 is the first year ITV aired and comissioned two series of The Cube on the commerical network. The first series aired in Autumn 2009 with the second series airing around the same time. This year we’ve seen the third series airing in the spring with the fourth airing now. Since the network works on a budget. The Cube’s budget could be used two series rather than one.
The Red or Black effect.
On the subject of budgets. Simon Cowell’s Red or Black was annouced in April with the show’s budget ranging from £7 million to £15 million. Since the bulk of ITV’s light entertainment budget was used on the over hyped £1 million game show. This could result in The Cube’s budget being lowered for the latest series.
Someone has beaten The Cube
Like most game shows. The recording order is not the same order that has been shown on television. There is a possibility a contestant on the latest series became the first person to beat The Cube, but it’s yet to be shown. If this is the case, this could lead to the producers deciding to have harder games for lower amounts of money. This method has been used on Who Wants to be A Millionaire? where Ingram Wilcox became the fifth £1 million winner. Once ITV/Celador paid out £1 million, the difficulty of questions was raised for lower amounts of money. The promos on ITV have been asking the viewer “Is this the week someone beat The Cube?” could indicate a big winner is coming. However, Phillip Schofield on twitter has been pretty quiet on the latest series compared to previous series. The third series lead him to tweet to say it was the best series yet but it seems has hasn’t mentioned much on the latest series. Could this mean he is keeping a massive secret or nobody is getting far on the show?
Whether the show has become harder or not. We shall see in the next five shows.






As I see it, the first two games (£1000 and £2000) should be relatively easy to get through — preferably with all nine lives in tact (which has been done before, I believe). The next two (£10,000 and £20,000) should be slightly more difficult, yet still doable. The two after that (£50,000 and £100,000), even more difficult, with the jackpot game being the hardest to win.
If no one’s beaten the Cube this series, either the producers have decided to make it even more difficult to get past the first two levels, or they’re on a serious budget crunch. Either way, Schofe’s silence on Twitter is deafening.
I’ve noticed that some (but not all) of the earlier games have become harder too, but I’ve also noticed that they’ve more or less stopped using the really hard games from previous series at higher levels, such as Elevation and Pinpoint.
As for Trail, I really don’t think that game looks that hard; it was simply a case of a contestant who was too nervous and/or whose forte definitely wasn’t in timing/rhythm, as with Zoe and Time Split in series 3. I’d guess a contestant who skillfully plays a musical instrument (or even a rhythm game like Rock Band or DDR) could probably beat it in 1-2 tries. Ditto for Time Split.
I also don’t think the speed doubles with each hit. By my estimations, the first box flashes at around 150BPM, the second box at around 200BPM, the third at about 250BPM, and the fourth at around 300BPM, which would mean the fourth box is only twice as fast as the first.
Addendum: I wasn’t satisfied with trying to estimate the tempo in my head, so I made an audio recording of the second attempt at Trail, then used a digital audio workstation program to measure the gaps between the “tick” sounds and calculate the tempo from that. I got 153.85, 193.70, 253.97, and 306.71 BPM, each with a margin of error around 5~10%.
And for those who aren’t musically inclined, 60 BPM = 1 Hz; the conversion is linear. So if the last square flashes at 300 BPM = 5 Hz, that’s a window of 1/5th of a second, twice that of Time Split pre-Simplify. A reasonably good musician should have no problem maintaining that degree of accuracy.
You could tell on the show last week. Her hands were shaking from nerves when she attempted to time the fourth sequence. She was too nervous to get a rhythm that she was second guessing.
You are right with the more patient enduring games like Elevation and Pinpoint. As with Side Track. We haven’t seen any reappearance from the three games in the current series, Given only one person has won £50,000. Whose to say they are saving these games for £100,000 but the other contestants have yet to reach £50,000?
If no one beats The Cube in this 4th Season, I think they should perhaps add another game level worth £500,000. Having a primetime game show with less than £500,000 seems cheap, but maybe it’s just me. Same thing with Secret Fortune. £100,000 seems like nothing on that show.
The reason why Secret Fortune has a top prize of £100,000 is because it’s on the BBC. Their budget comes soley from the licence fee and not from advertisers as it’s commerical free. Which is why the other two lottery shows have similar prizes. Who Dares Wins has two money lists with a £50k maximum prize (up to £100k per show) and In It to Win It has a £100k top prize.
As with The Cube being £250,000. I think it’s perfect. Yes, it’s not £1 million but £100k and £250k is still lifechanging to most people. A guy on Deal or No Deal this week decided to deal at £15,000 but said to Noel Edmonds that amount is lifechanging to them, A show for not having a seven figure prize doesn’t mean it is perfect. The best shows tend to be the ones that have smaller (The Cube, Secret Fortune, Pointless, The Chase) or no cash prizes (Only Connect). Million Pound Drop might have a seven figure prize but the format is worked out that most people win around £100k.
Also UK budgets is not like the budgets on US television where The Amazing Race and Survivor can give away £2 million per year.
Whatever the difficulty of Britain’s version, I think it is still awful how the US won’t be getting its own version anytime soon. Am I the only person who still thinks CBS should’ve Green-Lit the Cube and that Neil Patrick Harris would’ve made a great host?
CBS doesn’t like primetime game shows anymore, so we should’ve expected that the pilot filmed for The Cube would’ve have gone anywhere, which we all now know that it didn’t. Ever since Million Dollar Password ended in 2009, CBS has refused to air primetime game shows in its schedule. And don’t forget, Million Dollar Password was consistently bringing in about 8 million viewers per week, yet CBS axed it anyway. I wouldn’t mind having 8 million people tune into my show. I wouldn’t call that low ratings. Low ratings would be 4-5 million people, such as with Million Dollar Money Drop on FOX (even though in my mind, 4-5 million isn’t too shabby either).
I hate how these networks axe game shows because they’re not bringing in the 20 million viewers that they want them to.
It is not so much that a show does not bring in twenty million viewers–although I cannot imagine any network executive who would not like to get that kind of audience!
Game shows have developed the reputation that they “skew old”–that they draw a primary audience that is 50 years old and older. For the past forty years, advertisers have dismissed the fifty-plus audience as not being worth the pursuit. It is taken as gospel and/or received wisdom that the only products purchased by the fifty-plus audience are denture cleaners, bran cereals, adult diapers, and life insurance policies.
CBS has long accepted the idea hat its programs will skew a little older than those of the other networks. They’ve lived and died (but mostly lived) on a steady diet of situation comedies and police procedurals, with a strong appeal to a slightly older audience.
Further, CBS favors early-evening slots for the “reality” shows that pass for prime time game shows on that network. The Sunday night slot usually held by “Survivor” or “The Amazing Race” follows immediately after “60 Minutes”, which has been a big draw for the network for many, many years. Naturally, they want to hold onto as much of the audience as they can.
CBS has not been as subject to the boom-and-bust cycle that has affected, say, NBC. Nor do they actually try for the younger audiences that are perceived to cleave unto Fox or the CW. So, if somebody at the Eye does not like game shows, it’s possible that he may have some influence not justified by his status. But, as we cannot look into other person’s minds, we really have no way of knowing for sure what other people think.
I frequently visit TVByTheNumbers, and they’ve said that it’s not that viewers 50 and older aren’t wanted, but that there are SO MANY of them and they watch SO MUCH television that you don’t have to pay much money to get good exposure to them. 18-49s watch much less and therefore advertisers will pay more to court them. 18-34s watch less still and thus advertisers will pay even more. I recently saw an article that showed that NCIS, the most popular show in the nation (until Idol kicks off), charges $154,646 for a 30-second spot. Glee, however, which is watched one-third to one-half as many people as the CBS drama, charges $267,141. A full $100,000 more!
http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/chart-american-idol-nfl-duke-priciest-tv-spot/230547/