I thought someone on the stream said the code was 0.90. If so, that worries me because there didn’t seem to be a lot there.

Yes, it’s just a number. But with the recent Stern emphasis on being more transparent with code updates it’s been fairly clear that 1.00 now means the code is essentially feature complete so v 0.90 should indicate the code is pretty far along.

Listening to Dwight on the Munsters stream last night it’s clear he is passionate about the game. However, it was also clear that one of his goals was to make the game simpler (a throwback). There seems to be a bit of scoring complexity and options, but it’s basically collect 5 characters and jackpots and repeat and is a game designed to be played without ball save (though there is a ball save in the code).

It certainly doesn’t appear the game will have the depth of TWD or BM66, but that doesn’t mean the game won’t be “finished”. To me it looks like it will be fine on location even at the current code level (whatever that is) and it was clear the code wasn’t done yet. I do question whether it will be deep enough to keep an average to above average player in a home environment interested long term.

One of my favorite pins is Creature because of the theme integration and that certainly isn’t a deep game. But sometimes theme isn’t enough. I waited years for a fully restored MB that I used an NOS pf I had since 1998. The game was beyond stunning but lasted less than a year in my collection because it just didn’t do it for me, primarily because the code was relatively easy (to me) though I have other games from the same era I don’t feel that way about (SC, MM, NGG).

I agree that not every pin needs crazy depth. But the LCD generation of pins need to be deep enough for serious players on route and most collectors who buy NIB. Now that updating code on a machine is trivial and there are no significant memory constraints there is no reason to stop at simple, especially since a new game is $6k-$9k