IMHO I believe your estimate to be rather optimistic. I feel the initial excitement for this title from 3 months ago has lost some of its momentum. if the game is produced as it stands, I don't see it being a commercial success. by the time TNA is ready to ship, more alternatives will have presented themselves as well. I can see asking price having a bearing on sales for this title more so than alternative/current/upcoming NIB. it may take an asking price of 5,000 or less to move numbers. I won't be surprised if indeed Spooky lists it in that range. just how many machines are produced remains to be seen, but among the many positives from Spooky is their transparency when it comes to disclosing production numbers.

Fair enough, when comparing to Stern. But what if JJP had built it, and build quality wasn't going to be an issue? everything in the original BOM was kept, and then some, without cutting corners?

I believe the original question was posed from this standpoint. Say an existing manufacturer revealed a new non-themed game dolled up in purple and pink; designed by an unestablished first time designer featuring a simple one level layout, a mostly single rinse/repeat objective, no modes, no ramps, no toys, but they told you its got a great light show and driving soundtrack. It was going to list for $6K. They justify this machine as their attempt to return to the 80's simplicity of rules and layout with retro art.

If TNA was an in-house design by JJP would people still view this machine as something special or ask themselves 'what exactly are they trying to sell me here'?

it's understandable A LOT of support in this thread comes from the homebrew/pinside community as well as personal friends of Scott. This element would not have existed if an identical game had been presented cold from an established company. Without it, I suspect opinions might be less enthusiastic.

given what has taken place in the last five or so years, everyone knows the barriers to entry in the pinball industry are HUGE. Not just from a manufacturing standpoint, but as a playfield designer, a code programmer, or an artist, the opportunities are few and far between when only a handful of new titles get produced each year. Scott is blessed to have his game reach critical mass.

the merit of my post was not meant to rest on who made the game. the poster who posed the original question specified Stern as a manufacturer and was immediately countered by Stern's recent lack of QC and desire to cut BOM. I only brought up JJP so as to eliminate those arguments as concerns, which were irrelevant to the actual position which was:

There is an imbalance of support from the homebrew/P-ROC community in this thread compared to threads discussing other NIB/upcoming titles. if this exact game was not designed by Scott Danesi and thus had no connection to the homebrew/P-ROC community, but instead was an in house design by a reputable manufacturer would it be as well recvd?

ive seen people who have played it. several hours of streams. from the reactions its hard to tell if they are excited/having fun. watched the dead flip entourage feeds playing TNA - witnessed more frustration than anything. Watched the 2hrs+ of video from SFGE and didn't see many people walking away from TNA with smiles on their faces (if that's a valid indication of enjoyment) - but of course they are playing a whitewood. In all fairness, few walked away from Houdini with a smile on their face on the 2hrs of coverage from that same show - and that game had a pf/cabinet art package.

funny, in Gerry's show reports re: P3 he paints a picture of smiles on everyone's faces having fun. that's what I hope to see from general attendees [novice players] at a pinball show. Still, 5 hrs+ of video between TNA and Houdini taken at SFGE and just didn't see many smiles from the GP. Personally, I play seriously but tend to laugh at myself when I misplay the ball, miss a shot, or get cheap drains. Those are frustrating times for sure, but I have a smile on when they happen, so perhaps I'm projecting that onto others.

Serious players, on the other hand, I don't expect to be smiling much especially when playing a game where their ball times are lower than they may be used to. the dead flip group are certainly not shaking off drains with a smile, but I guess underneath it all they are having a blast.

I don't mind playing games/specific shots that are challenging as long as you have an opportunity to execute them if you play well. Now, if the game is difficult because you never get/can't create a chance, then that's another story.

Rosh, my comments were not an attempt to dis on Houdini, but rather not to single out TNA. my observations based on viewing both streams were that people were not smiling. I'd expect a line at both TNA and Houdini since only one of each gm was present. Perhaps they were getting back in line because they wanted to play more than 2 balls. limiting was a good idea.

So, general public attendees vote for best in show?

while a positive should it happen, the health of the industry is going to ride on bigger issues like companies actually building and delivering games they have already sold, completing code on games they have already sold, and new manufacturers establishing themselves vs failing.

.

exactly, so far the majority of posts have been focused on the lightshow, soundtrack, speed, and the art. With over 6 hours of gameplay available, i would have hoped to see more discussion on SPECIFICS regarding the playfield features/layout, gameplay, and how the rules set/objectives relate to said playfield and playability. instead we have generalizations of 'its fast/brutal' and 'fun'.

it's nice to see someone else FINALLY looking in the right direction.

Do people even understand why it plays so fast?

tna (resized).jpg

Well, so far the few dissenting opinions are quickly being 'corrected' by those who purport to know otherwise. returning to post number ONE and topic of this thread - its a poll as to whether, as a pinside member, you would buy this machine or not. the current yes/no/maybe count shows.
.... yes[120]
.... no[161]
.... maybe[155]
apparently there are 160+ people who found some aspect of the game they didn't like who might offer 'constructive criticism'. there should be far more posts with a contrary position than currently exist. the ratio [+/-] is way out of whack. further, the number of positive posts that lack substance is overwhelming.

i have but a handful of posts so far in this thread (some with negative implications) but nothing unharmonious. in my last post i was trying to get discussion started on people's feelings/observations regarding specifically the playfield and its features, playability, game rules/objectives, and whether they complimented each other. i already have my own ideas and conclusions. i am interested in what other people see and how they feel. in that post i closed with what was intended to be a rhetorical question "do people know why the game plays so fast?" and a photo that i would have hoped might elicit something constructive. responses from whysnot and lpeters82 were a nice start. got a rehash of the gameplay rules, when i was really looking for what people actually thought of them and how the playfield works when it comes to attaining them. got the expected response from Aurich. And one from jwilson wondering why i haven't responded to people who are 'correcting' me with flaws in their logic.

i guess ill have to 'carry the torch' more in upcoming posts.

i would hope all the staunch supporters in this thread are still on board. the numbers beyond this circle, well? i'm still sticking with my first post in this thread from two months ago. It was in response to the OP who, at the time, was trumpeting that Spooky better have 500 games ready. i felt his figure was 'rather optimistic', made ZERO derogatory comments about the game, but instead cited market price and competition as a couple factors that might hurt sales.

Aurich still didn't like that.
[how tactful does one need to be?]

i freely admit i was off on the MSRP by 1,000. But i'm not wavering in my belief that at above 5K [especially 6k] sales will be compromised simply by price. compelling NIB competition at this time is not going to help either.

Thanks for the advice.

opinion stated as fact; with a personal guarantee, no less
nothing like practicing what you preach.

also two excellent examples of cheerleading with no substance.

then a month later in response to someone who felt [with rationale] that sales would be less than 500 units...

nothing to talk about? but, but, but, just a month earlier it was OK for you say sales were going to go crazy and quadruple. [and please don't reply with 'yeah they went from 5 to 20, told you so, quadrupled']

thanks to the tone of that reply , i'm looking forward to it. hope no one's feelings get hurt. you can take the blame. haven't played the game. guess i missed it when it was in Cali. seriously, i expect people will find my analysis [while lengthy] to be fair and thought provoking, with both positives and negatives.

sorry, my apologies. was not a typo. i did have it wrong.

completing the top four inlanes to spell C-O-R-E advances the end of ball bonus multiplier. the current level of multiple is indicated by a solid light at the 2x/3x/4x inserts on the pf. the same 2x and 3x inserts will flash/blink during multiball indicating the playfield scoring multiplier is active; 3x during 3 ball, 2x during 2 ball.

Scott provided a dump of some stats from the May 12 twitch/dead flip stream. Jack never moved it over to youtube like he did for the first two. it isn't available anymore on the twitch/dead flip site. it appears that footage is lost/gone; one to two hours worth. scott did reveal the backglass on that episode. at the time, there wasn't much new/different regarding the actual gameplay. scott mentioned that spooky recommended adding a 'mystery' feature to game, which he did.
the loss of the footage is unfortunate because scott scored 2.4M in a game where he destroyed 4 reactors and almost a fifth. i suspect the ball times were longer than usual given the scores, yet the stats still show 23 seconds.

as for pricing, i'm in the 5 balls/$1 camp. its definitely going to be a quick game timewise for most people, and i believe the actual gameplay isn't going to appeal the masses either. even adding perceived value in the pricing may not be good enough. best of luck though. i'm sure reports will be coming in letting us know how it fares. HUO where one can just keep pressing start again and again without having to pony up $1 each time is where this game will find its calling.

stats per www.scottdanesi.com

The version of the backglass shown last night on the Dead Flip stream was a version without cutouts for score displays. We made this one first in case we could not use these displays in production, but I fully expect them not to be cut out of the production game.

Here are the audits from the game from last night. Pretty cool stuff!

Audits:
– Avg Ball Time: ‘0:23’
– Avg Extra Balls: 0 #This is not working yet…
– Avg Game Time: ‘3:33’ [believe this is for all players dealt in, divide by 4 if everyone played = under 1:00]
– Avg Score: 292014
– Ball Lock Attempts: 243
– Ball Locks: 238
– Ball Search Started: 0
– Balls Played: 307
– Drains Left: 133
– Drains Right: 154
– Games Played: 99 ***
– Games Started: 32
– Jackpot Total: 15,
– Lane Save Awards: 148
– Multiball Started: 110 [one per game]
– Reactor Destroyed Total: 54 [1/2 per game]
– Reactor Started Total: 115
– Skillshot Regular: 99
– Skillshot Super: 28
– Tilt Dangers: 39
– Tilt Total: 1
– Total Annihilations: 0
BallsaveHighScoreData:
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 22:42:32 2017’, inits: SCOTT D, score: 8}
BumperHighScoreData:
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 18:29:07 2017’, inits: SPOOOOKY, score: 56}
ClassicHighScores:
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 22:42:32 2017’, inits: SCOTT D, score: 2411950.0}
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 18:29:07 2017’, inits: DEADYANCY, score: 1620350.0}
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 21:47:25 2017’, inits: FUMBLE, score: 1397800.0}
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 18:29:07 2017’, inits: SPOOOOKY, score: 1203000.0}
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 21:20:17 2017’, inits: BUTTS, score: 1164100.0}
LoopsHighScoreData:
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 17:16:51 2017’, inits: D EAD, score: 7}
SpinnerHighScoreData:
– {date: ‘Fri May 12 22:42:32 2017’, inits: SCOTT D, score: 415}

sorry to hear that info was not correct. so, rewatched the first hour of the SFGE youtube vid and tracked ball times start to finish. mix of player levels at the expo. expect times will be better tomorrow from players familiar with the game.

73 balls : average 35 seconds
10 balls > 1:00
longest ball 1:48
27 balls 20 seconds or less.

Hope they have the Elroy loop dialed in tonight.

elroy (resized).jpg

MB is avail to each player at the start of every ball. it is very straight forward. complete/steal the two captures and then release them. the problem/difficulty comes when trying to requalify a second MB on the same ball. my understanding is [as mentioned on the broadcast today] once the initial MB returns to single ball play, one must complete the inline drop targets and then visit the scoop [assuming the upper right one]. at that time, i'm guessing one has lock two balls and then release them again [7 total shots]. or maybe two balls are simply fired via auto-launch once the drop targets>scoop sequence is completed [4 shots]. I don't know. in all the hours of avail video, I can't recall seeing anyone play a second MB on the same ball.

so, the first MB is quite easy when compared to starting a second. it requires only 1 to 3 shots depending on the status of currently captured balls. the second MB sounds like 4-7 more shots are required.

the lock shot itself hasn't appeared very difficult on the previous whitewood streams. backhand off the right flipper was butter. today on the production prototype, the same players struggled with it. so much so, that in the early going it appeared it may not even be possible. it was higher up. players had to shot immediately from a cradled position. virtually no chance to complete if the ball had any momentum running down the flipper. a little disappointing to see.

at the end of Thursday's stream Scott reviewed some audit stats. in particular, he cited the average ball time was :42. i documented each ball, but arrived at :54. i double checked my math and am certain the :54 is more accurate and that some glitches still exist in the game software. for comparison, i also tracked the jetsons times which were 66.5 seconds. surprisingly close. thought jetsons was going to be longer and TNA shorter. longest ball on TNA was 2:58; jetsons 4:27.

there were 99 balls played in the stream, which exactly matched the final audit.

for the purposes of my accounting, I was using the time the ball was on the playfield for each players 'turn' - from the time the ball left the shooter lane to the time it hit an outlane or the center drain [including any extended play resulting from ball saves]. so, I was NOT including time for EOB bonus tally [which would have made times even longer]. it WOULD have included time for reactor startups [the idle time while the player is waiting for the scoop to eject]. if you are considering the ball 'out of play' during that time [which I was not] it would have reduced ball times by a full 5 seconds [41 started x ~12 seconds sequence = 492/99 = 5]. finally, it WOULD include the additional playing time realized by a ball save. the player may have 'lost' his original ball, but his 'turn' is not over. if your counting his 'turn' as over when the original ball is lost and not counting the extended time due to a ball save, that would also shorten ball times quite a bit. I can see from a logistics standpoint that the latter definition might be used, though it discounts time the player is still at the machine.

the 12 second difference over 99 balls is nearly 1200 seconds/20 minutes of extra playing time i'm giving players credit for. would be interested in hearing how you are defining ball time for your calculations.

bonus question. are you OK with the possibly 'unintended' super jackpot awards starting at 1:56:54 and 2:12:27.? as MB is being released, you enter the upper scoop before the drop target bank has time to reset for the normal jackpot awards to begin. now that's a skill shot that may be worth keeping.

best way to surmise my timing was. time stamp when ball enters playfield. time stamp when ball exits via outlane or center drain ending the player's 'turn'. difference between the two = ball time. the players turn included extended playing time from balls being saved. the 3 extra balls were counted as separate balls.

definitely not starting when ball enters the shooter lane awaiting a plunge. started when plunge entered pf. was ending when ball reached an exit. not waiting another second for it to reach the trough. both of these starting/stopping points would error on the side of shorter ball times. yet my observations were longer when compared with the audit results.

but you did.

where did you find genuine reviews for this game? did you consider any of them comprehensive in-depth reviews?

it is well documented the Kulek's bought a house as well.
two, if you count his mothers trailer.

since they are producing games out of order, how about a numerical grid. they could highlight each given serial number in a different color depending on the stage of production, then cross them off when they are shipped.

grid01 (resized).jpg

Chicago (AP) - at the conclusion of a recent performance, Scott Danesi groupies cant contain themselves after learning his latest album will be available for free on streaming services worldwide.

lookingup142 (resized).jpg

and for a lot less than $6,000.

handsdown.jpg

thanks in advance for the downvote, doctor jones.

harrisonford05.jpg

very nice and logical option

definitely defeats some of the intentional drain strategies that were heretofore available.

or enter the upper right scoop during the 2 secs before the drops reset just after releasing/starting MB.

yes hilton. seven months ago I told you. just from observing videos. at the time, you didn't miss an opportunity to once again downplay my opinion. at least you and others are arriving at the same conclusion.