Projectgilda

Rollercoaster was hugely successful in it's day selling over 3,000 units. The only AWP JPM to sell more was BIg Banker. Many games went over 2,500 but the 3,000 mark was hard to achieve. Monopoly and Cluedo SWP's sold over 3,000 units. I think it's appeal comes from the high frequency play and skill based feature games. It's my personal favourite, but then I'm biased.

So why, pray, have I just had less than £10 off nemesis in the £10 emulation?

Nemesis was never guaranteed to go all the way. That would be illegal.

You have to get the game into mode 5 for £50. You can do it from the cash ladder or 'let em spin' or hidden features, it makes no difference. There's no pots stored just a happy machine. We never broke the legal 50/50 so it's pure luck if you get it. Fact.

Red were a subsidiary of Barcrest that's true. But no-one knew what they did. They were totally separate to Barcrest.

But he never coded that code, so his opinion is just that. I agree that £1's alone wouldn't put it into that mode. Very rare that players would spend an hour punting just £1's into a machine. Length of play would have been a good highlight of competitor play.

I'm not disputing it's a thing. I'm saying there's no proof if it ever affected players in the wild. That's all.

There's no proof that it ever did. JPM never did it, nor projectcoin or Barcrest. If Ace or Crystal did I'm sure I'd have found out. So we're limiting it down somewhat.

You only need a crumb to 'diss the industry. e.g. VW has dodgy cars with fake emissions, therefore the car industry is bent, because i had a car that I lost a fortune on as soon as I drove it off the forecourt. Fingers burnt = dodgy?! Any excuse.

I don't know if it was a thing or not. But other manufacturers weren't so daft as to put only £1's in. Like I said earlier, we tested with various denominations, letting it go out of credit for a couple of minutes, leaving part credits in nothing was left to chance. So even if it was a thing it wouldn't have kicked in the way we play tested other companies products.

Red games had board values set to them (as with all compensated machine). But if you lost, that amount was put in a pot. Chances were that you'd get offered the same, but usually more, next feature. And it continued. If you played to lose you'd be given generous boards. It kept players on the machines as they knew their lost money would be offered time and time again. Pots were illegal by that time. The state of a game couldn't be dictated by previous games other than general compensation. Saving players activities was illegal.

@ChopaholicJust watched your latest video. Thanks for that. At JPM we'd always have at least one competitor machine 'in stock'for general testing. To cut a long strut short we played them with multiple coins. As if, if you like, you'd bought a pint and had some loose change. We have everyone play them including receptionists to get a good idea of how they played in all scenarios from expert player to a beginner. A tester was marking down every outcome from all games played. But it was always multiple coins. So stat play wouldn't have been a thing for us. However, it doesn't surprise me that Red did such stuff. Knowing them very well (I used to live with the founder) nothing would surprise me. They were very savvy. I know for a fact they did pots when they were illegal. Fact. Never caught, never challenged and they did well in the £25/£35 era because of this.

In my hey day of playing machines I used to loved chucking £20 in a pot with 4 other guys and doing a pub crawl playing machines, irrelevant of what they were (within reason) and getting happily pissed playing bandits and pool. They were great times. If we won it'd pay for more beer if we lost it didn't matter. I did love seeing my machines in pubs and we'd play them more but it wasn't hunting locations. Just great times in my youth with good friends. That's what I take out of the 90's and my relationship with machines.

Do you really believe that most players were addicts? I don't agree with that. This site has it's fair share of recovering/recovered addicts but I don't think that's a fair split. I think most players were in it for fun win or lose. It's like saying everyone in the bookies has a gambling problem. Some people, most I would say, like a flutter and enjoy the thrill of gambling responsibly. I bet on most things sport related, it makes the said event more interesting, but I stake only what I'm happy to lose. I think I'm in the majority not the minority.

Hi. I didn't work on Camelot, it was after my time. It sounds to me like a cheat rather than an error. It'd take specific code to be written and I doubt that would've passed the test department if it wasn't intentional.