No one outside of the pinball community knows there's a Big Lebowski pinball machine. They don't read internet forums all day at the Universal licensing offices. But by doing that launch party, and by getting published in the local newspaper in Europe, they certainly are risking trouble if they haven't received the go-ahead to advertise the game and all its assets.

If what Phil says is true (and I have no stake in the game anyways so I have no idea who to believe), then it sort of shows why Stern games are tame in their artwork. They can only work with movie assets pre-approved by the studios. And those studios don't want to go back to the actors and re-negotiate.

And I'm not surprised how strict the licensors are. Does anyone remember how awful the Sandra Bullock image was on Demolition Man? Or how hard the Pinball Arcade has been working to get The Addams Family Pinball virtualized?

This is probably very wrong. If Universal does something that pisses off actors, directors, intellectual property holders they work with, it could cost the millions in movies not made, or lawsuits against them. The pinball licenses are likely very small dollar amounts (I read somewhere, but don't quote me, that the license cost is around $50K for a movie based game for Stern). Universal or any other media company would gladly protect themselves by leaving money on the table if they think a deal would potentially hurt them.

Wow. No, you can't. If you build a product based on a license and show it off before have gotten 100% sign off you risk being sued for millions of dollars. How would all those prepayers feel if their funds were used not for bulidng pinball machines but instead for lawyers defending a lawsuit or as settlement for a lawsuit? This is why Stern does not preannouce games. There is so much at risk. They quite simply should not have accepted dollar one until they had 100% approval on a final design. End of story.

True, but if I owned 1/3rd of a company and a partner was willing to surrender his 1/3rd FOR FREE TO ME, I would take over his portion of the company if I thought the company is a profitable, going concern. The only reason I wouldn't take it is if the company ownership is actually a liability and I think the thing is going tits up. Phil's story, if true, is that he invested $100,000 into the company and wanted to leave without recouping any of that money. How is that not a dream scenario for Barry and Jaap?