Whilst B/W games had their fair share of issues, they certainly didn't chip this early.
I remember seeing a BSD with 40000 plays on it and the outhole was virtually unmarked!
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider shapeshifter.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
A re-make should be as least as good as an original.
The ribbed playfields are common as many Stern playfields have these so it's bad luck if you get one.
Chipping - Spooky seem to be the only company that has got their playfields at a level where this is not happening.
Wrong color playfields.
Surely by law that is such a clear manufacturing defect that an automatic replacement should be a given?
Quoted from bitpatrol:For those of us who do not know the answer to this... I"m assuming there is NOT issue at all with MMr resale if it has a diffuser compared to one without the issue? I"m curious to find out. I think maybe the nude is a more unique playfield and potentially may be worth more in the future?... not sure.
The reason hot pink CFTBL playfields sell for more is that they look so much better than the others.
Do the nude look better? Not in my eyes.
Quoted from iceman44:I get why some anal people do it but I'd never put a PF protector on any pin i own.
Mylar, cliffys etc. no doubt
IF i ever played a pin i own to the point where the PF got beaten to shit I would just replace it with a Micro or tear it down and have it re cleared.
I also wouldn't pay anybody any more for a pin that had a PF protector on it versus not. I don't care what the PF looks like if it has 40k plays on it, you still have to "restore" and tear down most of the pin anyhow.
I want the real experience as much as possible.
Hated the way a BM66 played with a full PF protector on it.
How people can say they play the same is beyond me
Quoted from cooked71:These suppliers, and many of the fanboy trolls on this site, like to shift the blame for these issues to the buyer by implying the buyer is being unreasonable and over-reacting. They argue these problems are "not real" , only aesthetic, have no impact on gameplay, are part of pinball, and therefore the buyer shouldn't be complaining.
Onwallst 's experience sums up why many buyers are not happy to accept these "non-issue" issues. The end result was he lost a significant amount of money as a result of losing the NIB lottery. Fanboy's and suppliers will argue "that's pinball, you cant expect to open a game, play it and get your money back". But the fact is Onwallst had hardly played it. The game had no damage from actual gameplay. He was just unlucky enough to get a bad PF out of the box. The used market proved that buyers saw this as issue and would only accept it at a discounted price.
The result was pretty concrete - he paid in cold hard cash for the ineptitude of the supplier when in fact the supplier should have taken the hit themselves. Onwallst paid the equivalent of having to swap the playfield that was deemed not up to standard by the used market, when that cost should have been borne by the supplier.
It must be an embarrassment for CGC that some buyers are now purchasing Mirco PF's to swap in to their AFMr's.
Give it X number of years and nice originals will be priced higher than the re-makes if anyone cares about that kind of thing
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider shapeshifter.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/attack-from-mars-remake-afmr-owners-club?tu=shapeshifter and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.
Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.