Hmmmm interesting... you mean to tell me that the people building new pinball machines (which provide their income) are more concerned with selling those new machines over and above what happens between hobbyists selling used pinball machines (which provides no direct income), wow I had no idea.

I think that anybody building new pins in this market must have a passion for the product because it is too niche for anybody to just jump in and make their fortune doing it. Better realize that ultimately they are trying to make a living and GROW a business/industry not a "hobby". Building business based a hobby is tough because it is too volatile, where changes in life can easily eliminate the disposable income needed to make a purchases, especially at these price points.
Stern builds 3-4 new games a year, I don't think they care whether they sell those 3-4 to the same guy (collector/hobbyist) or to 4 different people (individuals who just want one in the game room and never heard of Pinside) ... why should they?
How many Pinsiders would make real sacrifices in the name of the hobby (or should we take care of ourselves/family first)? Machines still in boxes aren't supporting the hobby, anybody out there want to support the hobby and sell me a NIB TRON LE for the original MSRP??

What would you like them do differently, just sell new games for less? NOBODY here knows the Stern financials and there has been a lot of guesses, from educated to completely ignorant, but how can we know if lower prices is a really good long term strategy if they can't grow the business at those margins? Is the short term fix to satisfy frustrated buyers going to be good long term fix for either the company or the industry? Would that fix everything (or anything) in secondary market or is that also driven by greed to some extent?

I do think manufacturers care about the industry but if Stern intends to sell (made up numbers here) 4 new games for a total of 20,000 pinball machines a year it doesn't much matter if it is 5000 buyers@4each or 20,000 buyers@1each as long as it continues every year (and it does need to continue). That was my point.
But to your point, over time the reason for the purchase does matter to the manufacturer. If Stern can continue to build and sell at a price point that engages operators who keep games in the public eye it could certainly add to the home-use buyer pool. If they price-out operators they will need to develop a way to engage home use buyers at new levels. So sure they need to be savvy about the market but either way 20K pins is 20K pins. Regardless of the MSRP, if they fail to sell what is required to be profitable and grow then the buyer demographic really isn't relevant. If we choose not to buy new at current prices it may force manufacturers to lower prices ... it may also force them out of business.

I guess I'm supposed to apologize to the hardcore group for not making a personal effort to see it "grow" but I can't feel guilty about it because we are all in it for our own reasons. I bought my first machine for nostalgia and now I own for convenience because locally there is no location play. The "hobby" isn't going anywhere and certainly it isn't going to vanish due to the lack of new machines due to high prices. Tournament play may suffer, that certainly needs an infusion of new players and or pins over time but it isn't of interest to me so it is up to others to nuture and grow it for the pleasure of those who participate. Certain buyers/collectors may be discouraged by a lack of new pins and vanish (especially the LE speculators who buy and resell for profit) but others will fill in. Will it cause older pin prices to skyrocket? Nope. Could they rise? Certainly in the short term but long term no, especially as people drop out.

Is the current pricing "bad for pinball" yes and no ... it is all about perspective.

No argument from me and I am NOT trying to defend Stern here but I believe they have been doing just that and what happened on Pinside? The immediate reaction here to any sort of cost savings measure is a call for a reduction in price. They changed the power switch position on Spike games which might very well be about cost savings BUT everyone argued it can't save them more then a few cents. The pro versions with less features (ie GOT) has not met with enthusiastic cheers about keeping the price down by reducing cost ... instead we want to pay less for it. Yes, as consumers our job is to pay as little as possible to get what we need but we need to be more pragmatic.

(DISCLAIMER the dollar value in the following scenario is purely hypothetical and not meant to infer that moving the switch would actually cost $200 or that Stern would raise the price by that much)

IF that switch change was a cost reduction and the option was to increase the price $200 what would you prefer? Perhaps for you the cost increase would be fine since it eliminates your problem if they leave the switch alone, for others ANY increase in cost is simply unacceptable.