1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

JJPOTC Production Update

Discussion in 'General Pinball Chat' started by mwong168, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. mwong168

    mwong168 Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Toronto
  2. Mike Walsh

    Mike Walsh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    C.B.S. , Newfoundland
    Got to give them credit for not pushing out a problematic machine and taking the time to get it right!
    Really says a lot about the company! Good for them!
     
    #2
  3. Chris Bardon

    Chris Bardon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,084
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON
    I'm a little surprised that they didn't try to re-engineer this to make it work after making such a big deal about it earlier. Seemed like a neat design for a mech. If it wasn't going to work long term though, I suppose it makes sense to cut it, and it's not unprecedented to make mechanical changes from test games to production. First examples that come to mind are the Deadworld mech on JD, and the big 3rd gopher on NGG (that was supposed to be under the disc).

    Having not played POTC yet, I can't say how the motion of the disc rings changed the ball path, but this will probably change the way the game shoots/reacts.
     
    #3
  4. mwong168

    mwong168 Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    819
    Location:
    Toronto
  5. TrueJedi

    TrueJedi Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Oshawa, ON
    I don't disagree that the changes are warranted based on their findings, however, they've been witnessing and fielding these issues on and offsite for months. Simultaneously they've been taking orders with continued advertising that includes these features. IMO they should have been creative with adding something into the game as a substitute. Yes that too would have been critiqued and weighed against what was removed, but it's just doesn't seem equitable to me that people continue to pay original cost for a product that's lacking some of it's original selling features. Also using the word "tweeking" mis-represents when you are removing or reducing functionality. I still look forward to playing this come summer, but my lust for ownership is diminishing.
     
    #5

Share This Page