Simple... economies of scale, inventory, and labor.

For every variant purchased, that is one less piece needed from a larger pool. Smaller runs = higher cost per part.

For every variant purchased, that is more inventory that must be received, handled, sorted, stored, and manipulated. For every variant purchased, you also now need more spares for overrun, defects, service, etc.

Having variations in the production line adds complexity and time = more costs.

My input on the whole 'originality' discussion is improvements to the original game's concepts for reliability, modernization, etc should be on the table. Things that make the LE an LE... that makes sense, but those choices should be universal.. that's what makes it an LE.

But don't make offer a 'build a pin' site or a 'custom pin'. Those are MODS - not 'improvements'

Thx Rick - I'd rather have reliable, predictable, solid over flashy, extreme, unpredictable.

I just want my LE differentiated from the old and standard... I don't want a custom pin!

What you are trying to say is... unless MMR *GROWS* the market.. it cannibalizes revenue from Stern/JJP.

I find it very unlikely that a remake that sold out in a day did anything to grow the market - but rather sucked a lot of money out of it for the next 12-24months. The game was not marketed outside the established community, and didn't have a chance to be bought outside the community. Hence, it's all money from the existing market. I doubt MMR standard will bring operators out of hibernation give the game's price point.

Anyone who thinks MMR has no impact on Stern/etc needs to look at who is buying the game... it's the existing customers of the other vendors. The existence of MMR didn't boost everyone's incomes.. so everyone is fighting for the same dollars.

No - he's saying if you SET EXPECTATIONS UP FRONT - you'll manage people better.

Part of that is acknowledging what you know to be an issue... vs making blanket 'its not done yet' CYA types of statements.

Notice he did come back and post 'before anyone has a coronary..' type of post about the dragon... so there is some semblance of being aware of heading off what he thinks would cause a stink. It would appear Rick didn't think the castle or LEDs were worth mentioning in the same degree of 'warning - incomplete'.

Rick has said repeatedly he wants to make things as close as possible to the original - EXCELLENT... but he has also shown just as much support for COMPROMISES... which ultimately necessitate deviating from the original. What those compromises are... obviously are up to PPS. It's not unreasonable to think they need to make more compromises yet.. including ones even they are unaware of yet.

And now Rick posts they will have RSharp around the first week of January (and earlier was looking at this month). If these are the intended dates... doesn't that make you think twice about how much they think is left to do.. if the approval check comes in less than 2 weeks... wouldn't that make you think in their opinion what they have is close to done?

What is considered 'close enough' is open to interpretation. It's entirely possible Rick's impression would differ from others. Not being forth coming on what he thinks is 'missing' yet when posting the video leaves it open to interpretation on what PPS considers done or not.

*looks around* - you do realize you are on a pinball discussion forum... where... you know... topics about pinball are discussed?

Are we supposed to lock all threads to 'owners only' now?

and btw.. I am in for MMR LE

Some do seem to exist to just derail.. or think the forum is their personal playground... but that's a problem on pinside in general. But in the context of the question I responded to - the answer is MMR is a subject for the entire pinball community as its another manufacturer setting up... it's bigger than the peeps looking to buy the title.

But there are aspects to the 'old style' that the LED owners just chose to ignore. They prefer their tradeoffs.. and turn a blind eye to losing things like dimming, flicker free, ghosting, etc. Now with products like OCD LED.. you can combat most of those things.. but did LED owners think their games were great before OCD LED? Yes... Do they even know the things they are lacking? Probably not..

What's the lesson? Not everyone has the same standards of 'good enough'

here's what I see...

Q: how is the development and efforts being proven reliable and on target
A: everyone involved is doing their best to make this a success

While the answer may be true.. that doesn't really qualify that the concern is addressed. No one is doubting the motivation or intentions of PPS/CG - but intentions do not guarantee results. That robust projects go through those iterative phases of development and test. Not to catch what you intended to be.. but to catch what you did not expect.

Somehow people questioning design choices or future scheduling is being equated to personally attacking Rick/PPS/etc.

It's one thing to say 'we know this path to be better' - it's something entirely different to have actual test data to back it up. Pinball history is litered with changes people made not because they were cheap.. but because they thought this was better or an insignificant change.. many of which failed or had new unintended consequences that make the choice inferior to the 'tried and true'.

I've seen far more attacks on people who are skeptical than those skeptics attacking others. The sad thing is the ammo people are using is faith.

I personally am happy that Rick/PPS have been flexible to date with the deposits and sharing info along the way. I'm not sold yet that all the changes are 100% for the better.. but if I want to buy the game 'new' and not wait for it to be proven in the field.. that is a choice I have to make for myself as a buyer.

Well.. when entire segments of the normal process aren't present in the discussion.. that is somehow taboo to mention? Simple point.. field testing. Even manufacturers who were building on all proven platform tech used it - yet there was no mention of it from PPS. There was talk of 'approval -> manufacturing -> shipment' - all book ended by a promised shipping window. Now, there is talk about prototypes being out there to ensure people are comfortable with the game. That wasn't part of the conversation earlier, nor does it necessarily address the concerns about the durability/serviceability of the new platform components. This isn't people with an ax to grind, but legitimate discussion around new product (and technologies) coming to market and being sold us. I'm happy that Rick is here and willing to address concerns that people have raised.

This isn't people coming out of left field and saying they know what PPS has done or not. This is educated discussion based on information being shared and common sense deduction like... there needs to be days on the calendar between two dates if something that takes time is supposed to happen.

Legitimately - I didn't get that from viper's posts and actually found people trying to shout him down (you included) to be far more off topic and repetitive. I found his posts to be bringing new elements to the discussion and with each post... not repetitive trolling like other 'opinions' that the site allows people to inject and derail threads. Just look at the responses to viper when people try to shout him out.. what are the responses based on ? Nothing but 'what do you know' 'you don't know' 'they are going to make the best they can' - basically just trying to discredit the question rather than answering it or even considering it.

That doesn't mean I agree with all he has posted - or how he went about it - but you should be able to look past the delivery if you want to consider the content itself.

Case in point... the last point about fiscal incentive and what does WMS legal approval really qualify anyway. Legitimate discussion topics.. don't agree with his delivery... but everyone honed in on that vs considering the point.

Well instead of being dismissive - one would answer why it's not relevant. Such as... saying there is no royalty back to WMS for the product being sold and explaining why WMS would want an approval at all. That would be a discussion... one that educates people on what the process is and why it has value. Educational - instead of 'you dont know what your talking about' type of answers.

Yes... that's exactly what I said... *rolleyes*

You can be defensive.. or you can enlighten. Either way, it doesn't stop (and never will) that the outside world has curiosities about the 'inbetweens' of a business. And when birds of a feather get together.. they are likely going to discuss things.

You can chose to respond with information to address the topic.. or you can chose to respond with "you don't know what you are talking about". I'll let you decide what you think is more effective at addressing speculation.

Rubber on a pin is a consumable.... Even on Huo games. It just lasts longer on games with less plays

Uhh.. because people are paying EXTRA for this trim? Do you order stuff and just say "just ship me whatever"?

If you just want gameplay alone.. you wouldn't buy an LE you'd just buy a standard

Thanks for missing the obvious

wow... consider me shocked this thread hasn't blown up with the Stern manufacturing news.

In many ways I think this is a positive... not everyone was really behind Chicago Gaming's competency with pinball given their past efforts. Stern, while it has detractors, is almost entirely pinball focused so there is a bit of focus there that is nice. Stern also has a history of being able to get games out the door in volume.. something alas JJP has still struggled with.

While the labor at Stern may not be familiar with the build coming in.. lets be honest, it's not that different and they have to deal with new builds/parts on most games anyways. The QA testing is probably the highest risk area as different procedures and tooling is in order.

Good to hear of Stern keeping the factory busy.. if that is additional capacity or filler.. I guess speculation abound..

Rick - any comments on why we went from 'built in the same factory as the original..' as to why Chicago Gaming sub'd out the assembly?

We often send multiple units to the test labs. If they need more than one game for testing.. that's not abnormal. It all depends on the certifications you are going for and what you want to get done. Things go a lot quicker when you have more than one test subject

From UL's website...

Are samples required? Are they returned?
Samples for testing may be required. The number required is determined by the anticipated test program. Samples should not be sent until requested. Destructive tests are usually involved in our thorough test programs so, in many cases, the samples may not be usable as returned. All samples will be returned unless otherwise indicated by the applicant.

How many samples will I need to send for testing?
The number of samples required varies depending on the type of product. Your project handler will notify you with the number of samples needed.

UL isn't likely the only mark being applied for...

A reasonable person would have canceled their order when they had decided they no longer wanted the game... Not wait until someone says 'last chance' to cancel. If you didn't intend to carry through... They should have gotten off the bus a long time ago. Everyone understood the same timeframe at the start... So everyone knows we are on extra time since then.

This is a great example where people were given extra time and people still procrastinated. The trim choices are no longer an excuse and haven't been for some time

0.jpg