Quoted from spinal:

I think another thing Stern didn't count on is the backlash they are getting for not honoring the Star Wars theme with the very best they could do. They removed the magnets to save a few dollars - on a game where the central theme is using the force. The Tie Fighter on a spring as the only toy on the pro. And the Death Star is white for heaven's sake! They didn't even care enough to color it gray. I need to type it again: they didn't care enough to color it gray.
They have pissed off a lot of fans by showing so much disrespect for the Star Wars license.

Quoted from spinal:

Cost cutting does not always lead to higher profits. I've been thinking for years: why doesn't Stern just nail the art on every damn machine they release from now on? - I mean hit it out of the park.
I mean Aerosmith was a work of art and ghostbusters also very nice but what about others? Look like talented high school art class efforts to me - lazy photoshopped pasterama where you can just see from a distance that it's just done good enough but the love is missing. I mean really, SW looks just OK - I have not heard a single collector say they love it - it's not terrible - just ininspired.
The rerelease of AC/DC is another example. An embarrassing lack of effort there like someone phoned someone and said to change a couple of things before 5PM the same day.
Why so little effort? Well my only guess is to save money - cheap bastards.
Now here is my point. Are they really saving money if they sell less games?
So, as an example, is it a wise business decision to cheap out on AC/DC art? Lets say they found an artist that would completely redo the art for AC/DC of the same caliber as AS - how much would this cost them? Let's say $50,000 (could be less I'm not sure). And let's say they make $1000 profit per game.
So now the question is: if they rerelease AC/DC with brand new art that is just crazy good like GB or AS would they sell 50 more games than they normally would? I say yes and they have a chance of perhaps selling many more.
Now what about SW? What if it had much better art? I'm sure they would have made that investment back in spades.
My main point is that this is just one example where I think the management is failing and hurting the hobby and perhaps even their own bottom line.
Anyone else had these thoughts? Why is Stern so OK with mediocre efforts and not going for home runs more? The big bucks have to be with the home runs. Get some balls and go for it Stern! You can do so much better!

Quoted from Rarehero:

Licensing restrictions don't lead to bad art. Licensing restrictions may limit them to certain assets, but a good artist can then arrange those assets into something nice. Stern often has problems using assets in a good way. Look at the first version of The Hobbit playfield vs. the revised version. Two different artists take on the same licensed assets. It's night and day. When Stern Photoshops assets, they're generally pretty bad at it...and they don't stop production to revise like Jack did - factory's gotta keep churning product.
Anyway, "it's the licensor's fault" is only half the story. The other half is the artist assigned to the project and what they bring to the table. There's a reason most of Steve's games don't fare well in the art department - he doesn't have an eye for art direction & the artists he works with don't have any incentive to push themselves.