But you can buy your way out of jail for a relatively tiny amount, so it’s still accurate.
Nah, it was always a fantasy game.
It was originally designed to convince people that capitalist greed and acting as a landlord is morally abhorrent and the whole system should be replaced with socialism. The idea was, and I am not joking or exaggerating at all, to play the monopoly you know, and realize that it’s the worst game. Then, you play it with slightly different rules that change how land ownership and rent works, and you realize that literally everyone can win, and everyone plays cooperatively.
Then, capitalists saw it, stole the idea, and the original inventor didn’t have sufficient money to fight for her exclusive rights, so now we have only the capitalist, rent-seeking shit show of a game that Parker brothers stole.
It’s not “monopoly”. It’s The Landlord’s Game.
I wanted to read up on that, because I’ve never heard it before. And apparently her original patent for landlords game ran out in 1921, and her second patent mostly covered the single tax theory playstyle, which didn’t get incorporated into monopoly, because the new patent couldn’t include things from the old one.
So while they definitely took her game, and mutilated the concept to promote the thing it was advocating against, they didn’t necessarily steal it and abuse the fact that she couldn’t afford to fight back (At least from what I’ve seen, please correct me if I’m wrong)
But if she had had the money for a proper patent lawyer, she could have filed a patent for a sufficiently-changed or better-specified version that would have protected it. Even in cases of patent law, many corporations have managed to hold onto their patents with death grips despite their expiry (Nintendo comes to mind).
Then, capitalists saw it, stole the idea, and the original inventor didn’t have sufficient money to fight for her exclusive rights,
And this is why IP law only protects the rich. They’re the only people who can afford to sue for it.
Problem was that the second part of the game was terrible at being a game whereas the part we know now as Monopoly was, compared to its contemporary board games, quite good.
But still needs house rules to make it fun to play with friends. Playing from the rulebook is miserable. Side note: it really broke my immersion in A Quiet Place that the kids were quietly playing monopoly together. That’s how I knew it was a work of fiction lol
One popular opinion is that it is more fun with the actual rules, it is just difficult to follow the rules, especially the auctions. My computer had monopoly programmed into it when I was growing up and it was a lot of fun playing single player by the actual rules.
The free parking pot I’m kind of ok with, even though it makes the game longer it introduces a little randomness. Otherwise monopoly snowballs pretty fast.
Otherwise monopoly snowballs pretty fast.
That’s the point
Monopoly is a banned game in our family since that incident back on Christmas 1999 when my sister absolutely refused to trade properties with my mom and my mom getting irrationally angry about it to the point of shattering a chair and storming out of the house.
It’s so sad that Monopoly of all games became the number one household boardgame.
In my opinion Catan should be the game every family owns. The trading and negotiation aspect of Catan and the balance of the game itself makes you feel like you are always in control of your own situation. You have never truly lost until the game is over. In Monopoly you will see pretty early who will win and who will lose.
Catan is better, but is still heavily dependent on both randomness (favors new players) and snowballing (favors experienced ones). These kind of cancel each other out but it leads to a kind of knife-edge balance where it’s only balanced because each player will have some sort of “bullshit” that can happen to them to let them win. This usually cancels itself out enough to make the game playable (and can even be fun in moderation) but there are definitely strategies (usually involving the robber) where it gets too out of hand. I once played a game with my cousin where they only ever got 1 extra point (a settlement) the entire game, at the very end. Not super fun for them.
That’s because it was originally designed to convince people that it was an awful game system. Literally. The point is that it’s unfair and you should hate it.
In its pure form, the game it was shamelessly stolen from had a second play style, called “prosperity”, which had slightly different ownership and rent rules, and was played cooperatively.
If only real financial inequality made us that upset…
There have been a couple times
You guys should try the game “diplomacy” then.
One of them might literally commit murder.
TBF: both rich and poor people pay luxury tax (tobacco, alcohol etc.) - but such taxes always affect low income people more.
Also why fines should always be based on income. A static, $100€ speeding ticket can only keep the poorest in order
Indeed. If the punishment for a crime is a flat fine, then, to the rich, it is not a punishment, but a price
and in the game, the wealthy often want to stay in jail so they can stay wealthy. can’t land on a square that costs money but you still collect rents, build, and can wheel-and-deal while in there. so jail must be more mayberry pd and less federal pen.
Also, the game was supposed to be teaching everyone why monopolies are terrible, not as a set of goals for the epstein class.
And the person winning can have family members take their place, while others have to start from scratch. Or is it only the real world that’s so ridiculous?
You’re insane if you want to tax the new, rich players…
