Talk:History of video games/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Mystery of Semag Inc

In 1977 I worked for a Mr. Varian who had a strange video game unit gathering dust in his garage. The unit was built in a "cocktail table" configuration (small round table with the display face-up under glass in the center) and had a coin box in the base. It had mini-joysticks (RC controller style) and touch-sensitive (non-mechanical) buttons. The unit was labeled "Semag Inc".

Even though it was a black & white "pong style" game the programming was actually very sophisticated... it played many variations of games like pong, hockey, and even true tennis with very realistic laws-of-physics like inertia, momentum and backspin. I asked my boss about it and he said he & his brother had built it "many years ago" but the investor funding had dried up just as they finished this prototype. The amazing thing is the printed circuit boards in the box also were etched Semag Inc and were dated 1969! three years before PONG!

Anybody know anything about this anachronistic (pre-Atari Era) unit or the company Semag Inc? I think it would make a valuable entry into the history of video games if the details can be fleshed out. Low Sea 06:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Moved from text of article:

Everything listed on this page has to do with the history of consoles, but we're also using the word video game to apply to those played on computers. Request that someone add something about those!

I agree with the statement, but the comment belongs here, not in the article proper. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Me too!! And it also requires a lot of tweaking and fixing. Right now it's an incoherent mess of an article. And it should not occupy the precious namespace being called "History of the video game". (half-kidding) It should be called "History of gaming consoles". Come to think of it, I will actually move the page right now.

The sections on the 1950s, 60s, and 70s are mostly not about game consoles, except for mentioning Ralph Baer's work. Computer Space, Pong, Asteroids, EDSAC Tic Tac Toe, Spacewar, etc. were not game consoles. --Arteitle 05:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The mess is a result of combining the seperate computer/console histories into one. They were originally very coherent by themselves, but together they have to start referencing and complementing each other, which introduces a lot of new problems. 169.233.5.71 07:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where History of computer games ?

History of computer games redirects here but this article doesn't seem to reference any of that material and says little about computer games altogether. --Anon 18 Mar 2007

"Sega released the DreamCast (named Katana before release). "

Is that tidbit really necessary? If I remember correctly, that was never an official name, and pretty much every console has a tentative name before it's announced (Project Reality, Playstation Next, Dolphin etc.). Mole 18:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

proposal to move

I propose that this page be moved to history of computer and video games, with links to history of computer games and this article pointing to it. See computer and video games. This of course assumes that more about games played on the home computer will be added, and that this article is not meant to talk specifically about console games. Seaking of which, I don't believe that a split history of computer and video gaming would do anyone much good. --Slike 05:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. -Sean Curtin 05:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Just reiterating to make sure I understood: Move this to history of computer and video games and make history of computer games redirect there? If that's the case, then I agree. --Mrwojo 05:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree on the move, but keep in mind that as well as a single computer and video games article, there are separate ones for console games personal computer games, and arcade games. --24.114.252.183 22:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo era

In the talk page for the main article of this section there's doubts as to the validity of the label. Perhaps 8-bit era would be more appropriate, as some non-NES consoles were quite popular around the world. --24.114.252.183 18:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of the lists

There is already a Timeline of video games article, making the event lists here superfluous. If anyone reads this, please try to work additions into paragraph text instead of simply adding a bulleted item. --24.114.252.183 22:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re-sequencing of 1970's section

I added some sub-heads, combined the coin-op sections, got the console stuff together and in sequence, etc. I think the result is that the 1970's section now reads more clearly and flows in a more logical order. Comments, criticism and suggestions welcome! Coll7 08:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a formatting error/bit missing in the coin-op section, on the first paragraph? --Coffeelover 16:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Rats, you're right! I'll backtrack it and find where I messed up and fix it. Thanks for the catch. Coll7 19:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to 24.114.252.183 for cleaning this up before I had a chance to do it. Coll7 07:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-sequencing of early consoles sections

I swapped paragraphs around, following the spirit of what I'd done with the 1970's last month. I also corrected a section that said early consoles downloaded the game code into RAM. Again, all comments welcome. Coll7 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Names to Console Eras

I see from looking at talk pages that a lot of thought has gone into the subdivisions in this article. I also see that we need to look at breaking one or two more main articles out of this one due to length having grown again.

I'd like to propose adding one slot to the chronology in the CVG History template, and adding more descriptive terms to the subcategories so people recognize the eras by sight. I worked in the industry through much of this history, and without machine names to remind me I forget which machines, eras and years go together.

Maybe I'm re-opening old wounds, but I'd suggest that as part of this we subdivide the handheld continuum and give it the prominence it deserves in a separate article. Handhelds and consoles have marched to different drums for many years, and IMHO there's no neat way to make the handhelds' progress line up neatly with the consoles'.

Here's a draft sequence to start the discussion:

Now......................Proposed
Pong........................Pong (No Change)
(No section)................The First Home Console Wars (as per section in current article)
Video Game Crash of 1983....Video Game Crash of 1983 (No Change)
8-bit era..................8-bit era: Nintendo Brings Back Consoles
16-bit era.................16-bit era: Sega Genesis vs. SNES
32-bit/64-bit era..........32-bit & Beyond: Sony PSX vs. N64
Sixth generation era......The New Millenium: PS2, Xbox and GameCube
Seventh generation era....Next Gen: PS3, Xbox360

Thanks for considering these suggestions. Coll7 08:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You should make your proposal at WP:CVG. I disagree with changing the names to the ones you proposed. They don't reflect all the systems, not even close. What we have now is what was settled on after long in-depth debate. I think Pong should be removed as part of the history timeline. I really don't think it fits. The "first home console wars", might be a good addition though, although I don't really care for the name. Perhaps something like "Atari era" (which I've seen used) or perhaps something else that better reflects the time. K1Bond007 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of this article still needs a lot of cleanup before shifting large portions to child articles.
Those titles are entirely too POV-laden. They reek of fanboyish chest-thumping and ignore consoles popular ouside the North American market. The choice of Pong as the label for the entire first generation is as dubious as calling the 8-bit era the Nintendo era(which was thankfully corrected in that article). This is also the first time I've seen the consoles of the pre-crash period as being in a "war". That didn't really come into play until the Nintendo/Sega rivalry. Console era naming and the whole "next gen" issue (especially what the hell to call the generation after the "next gen") has been discussed ad nauseum and resulted in the current labels of the two most recent generations.
The history of handhelds is already present in the main handheld article, but cannot be easily removed from here as it is essentially another parallel path alongside PC and console games. --24.114.252.183 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

While the names may be slightly biased I would hesitate to call it POV or fan boyish. While true the titles do need work titles like: "Nintendo Brings Back Consoles" and "Playstation VS N64" are essentially facts: Nintendo did infact bring back consoles (Sega released the Master System a year after Nintendo began test marketing the NES.)and much of the 32 bit era was focused on the Playstation and N64. Deathawk 20:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1970's University Mainframe Section

I set out to copy edit the intro a little, then decided I should add Rogue (which was started in 1978, as I recall, though it first appeared in 1980) and ended up doing quite a bit of reformatting and moving things around to make it flow better. The Rogue paragraph is the only true addition. All comments, suggestions and thrown tomatoes are welcome. Coll7 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


This isn't going to work.

It seems that this article has been merged with the Timeline of video games article and while I see the logic behind the move it really kind of put both articles in turmoil. Noow half the list is a timeline while the other half consiss of written text describing the different video game eras. I propose we eithier create two seperate pages or just revert this whole thing to a timeline. Deathawk 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


NES Seal of Approval and the 8bit age

Something should be said about the difference between the way Nintendo licensed games for its platform compared to other systems. Part of the problem with earlier systems was the influx of incredibly poor quality games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.214.140.65 (talk • contribs) .


207.216.19.41

Can anything be done about this person? He's just constantly vandalizing the same section about the Dreamcast. Chris M. 06:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just gave him a week of "vacation." K1Bond007 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, he's been doing that continuously for both the Saturn and Dreamcast, apparently swearing up and down that both came out in Western countries on the year of their Japanese release, which neither did... That'd be, what, his fifth "vacation" for the same edits now? --Shadow Hog 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Something like that. I've blocked him twice. What do you want me to do. Block him more? If the IP is static, I guess I can. K1Bond007 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Years added to generations names

Discussion may have happened elsewhere so I missed it, but a hearty "Great idea!" to whoever added the years to the later generation history sections so that terms like "Sixth Generation" were easier to understand. I'd like to propose that the years also be added to the same titles in the history template box, which IMHO would make it flow much better. Coll7 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with making an entire generation seem as though it started in one year and ended in another. For instance, this page now claims that the sixth generation was over in 2004. This is flat out wrong. The Nintendo GameCube and PlayStation 2 are current systems and even Xbox was the head of the MS household until 2005 (although by some is still a current system). Theres too much gray area to define a generation by year. K1Bond007 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Jacoplane 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the beginnings and ends are not neat -- the PS1 era ended for high-end games in about 2001 but new PS1 games still ship. What I keep trying to explore is how to solve the following problem: if I walked up to random people in the hallways at GDC and asked them "What are 6th generation consoles and about when were they ascendent?" almost all respondents would not know what wasa 6th gen console. Our chosen terminology is not widely used, so even a knowledgable gamer won't know what era we're referring to until they read the text -- headers are supposed to be the opposite of that. Can I get you guys to go for adding "(Late 80's to early '90's)" or some other generic descriptors to give people some clue? Overlapping years to reflect the long trailing market after a machine has peaked? Thanks. Coll7 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the generation numbers here are essentailly arbietrary and are not commonly agreed upon or in any sort of wide use. Furthermore, they are also inaccurate. (The Atari 2600 and 5200 are conflated into the same generation according to these articles, which makes about as much sense as putting the NES and SNES together would.) Date ranges or descriptive terms would be a better way of labeling these sections, IMO. 64.171.162.76 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. If you listen to Sony talk (and watch store shelves), fifth gen (as written in this article) ended two years ago when production of the PS one stopped; sixth gen would stretch into the next decade. Would it be reasonable instead to list major consoles in each generation in their headers? (And as a note - I expect this remark will be ignored, as the original argument was over a year ago.) NeoDude0 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be a defining moment in the generation of the console. Such as, "Nintendo ends a crisis" (side note that Nintendo's practices should be noted as well...), or "Sony popularizes optical discs". Something to that effect, maybe? Franky1029 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No DOS/Windows commentary

I thought there'd at least be a little bit of commentary on how DOS games gradually shifted to Windows games with the advent of Windows 95. Anyway, I don't know if I could add the info myself but I did find this interesting article that'd make a great reference in regard to this. It's on the windows site archives: Windows storms last bastion of MS-DOS based applications - Games! - Phorque (talk · contribs) 20:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Question

Should the unnamed missle simulator and OXO be listed as the first computer games? After all, it says they were developed for the computers at the time. I looked at the Pong-Story and it says that Baer was the inventor of video games, so does this makes the aforementioned games the "first computer games", not games in general? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.255.50 (talk • contribs) .

No, it wasn't the first computer game either. What it was, was the first computer game to use a graphical display - i.e. use a display as part of the gameplay experience rather than just to show game/memory states (like [[Nimrod (computing) | Nimrod] did). --Marty Goldberg 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased

I'm not sure that this article is unbiased (or at least that it presents just the facts). Calling the 360 an "abysmal failure" in Japan is certainly not far from the truth, but it is narrow in scope and is certainly an opinion. Suggest it's changed to "showed poor sales numbers" or something to that effect.

The "Sixth generation" section is also very much in need of polishing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.1.143.100 (talk • contribs) .

Casio Loopy

Since this article is integrated with the deleted category that was once 'One-of-a-kind consoles', I think this machine should be at the very least mentioned. Not only was the target market unusual (it was designed solely for a female audience), it had a built-in sticker printer. While it was only sold in Japan and wasn't even very successful there, I think it is worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.210.24 (talk • contribs) .

American bias

I've noticed amongst most of these articlse a strong American bias, until I edited it (some time ago) the video games crash article didn't evne mention it was a event restricted to the US. In particular the main problem here is the very little mention the 1980s era of cheap computers in Britain recieves- amongst the press they are widely regarded as a critical point in the development of CVG and it was a pretty damn important area. Unfortunatly I don't kknow enough about it to write it myself however someone needs to.--Josquius 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I am sure the 1980s were a great time for computer games in the United Kingdom and I know that there were a large number of computer game publishers in that time, but lets face it, there is an American (and Japanese) bias here because in the international business of video and computer games, Europe is just not that important. Today, the largest publisher of computer games in the world is EA, an American company. The first person shooter is just about the most popular computer game genre, and important games in that field such as Doom, Quake, and Half-life came from America. MMORPGs are popular too, and this is another American phenomenon. Starcraft is still practically a national pastime in South Korea, certainly something no British game can boast anywhere in the world. Of course the making of console games is dominated by Japanese companies and always has been since the crash, which incidently was not a European phenomonon because their was no home video game market in Europe, only a computer game market, which was not affected nearly so badly by the crash. Certainly Britain has provided some important games, Elite comes to mind right away, as does the original MUD, the games of Peter Molyneux, Lemmings, and the Grand Theft Auto series, and no one can doubt that Rare made some important contributions as well, but these games are quite simply the exception that proves the rule. Britain was not "critical" to the development of video or computer games, because the roots for nearly all of todays greatest sellers are in America and Japan. Should their be an article on the history of Computer and video games in England? Absoultely. Should the truly groundbreaking games and designers that influenced game design the whole world over be included in this article? Absolutely. Should the general history article spend much time on a European market that has never been all that important to the development of the computer and video game as it exists today? Probably not. Just my two cents. Indrian 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldeneye, Tomb raider, Wipeout, Grand theft auto, driver, x-com, populous, theme park, colin mcrae rally (pioneered realistic rally games), elite, lemmings, worms, stonkers (first ever rts). maybe you could argue the importance of some of those games, but there is no way you could argue the importance of Tomb Raider on 3d platform games, Goldeneye on FPS games, and Wipeout's influence on the way video games were presented, and that it helped to push video games forward as a more acceptable, less stigmatised adult pastime. also, something i would like to note, is that though the USA and Japan may never have got to play many of the games coming from the UK during the 80's, games from the UK were massively popular in most parts of europe, and so may well have influenced other european games which achieved bigger fame later. For instance, the creator of the Alone in the dark series, which pioneered the survival horror genre cited the 3d games of Ultimate as massive influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.198.139 (talk)

Europe is very important.

I can't find any figures (google isn't what it used to be) but IIRC it took over Japan in terms of sheer £££ a few years back and keeps growing. Europe has some 400,000 people or so and the poorer areas are rapidly developing. It can't be discounted.
Also this is international wikipedia, not US wikipedia. Speaking purely in American terms as if people would know what they mean...It has to be looked at from a worldwide perspective irregardless of anytthing else.
Oh, and Britain certainly was critical in the development of CVG, in the 80s Britain was the center of the computer games industry.--Josquius 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in Europe, but hardly Internationally, most of the top computer games in the U.S. came from U.S. publishers. Most U.S. gamers didn't get a feel for European games until the 90's console market expanded and many games were ported. Amiga gamers did get a taste earlier, but this is a small market compared to the other platforms of that time period. Don't get me wrong though, I think all regions should be represented fairly. BcRIPster 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with BcRIPster here. In the 1980s, the British computer game market was both interesting and diverse with some truly innovative concepts, but the industry failed to build any momentum and dominate game making internationally. Virgin, Eidos, Bullfrog, Rare, and a few other companies developed an international presence in the early 1990s and made some important contributions that must be documented in this article, but such interesting games as Skool Daze, Carrier Command, Knights of Lore, and Head Over Heels were unknown outside of Europe and did not propel international video game design forward. Britain was not at the center of the computer game industry in the 1980s because even though there was a large industry at the time, it failed to reach markets outside of Europe. I do not know if American games such as Ultima, King's Quest, or Pirates! were reaching Britain during this time. If they were, then the United States would have to be considered the center of the industry; if not, then there were two distinct centers at the time, but the American companies have surely won out in the long run. So I say once again, we should definately have an article that focuses exclusively on Britain and we definately need a few more British games in this article, but an American/Japanese bias is inevitable and proper based on the relative importance of the three centers of game design. Indrian 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a big difference between U.S.-heavy content (appropriate for the reasons argued above) and U.S.-centric phrasing (i.e. assuming everything refers to the U.S. unless otherwise stated—never appropriate on WP, except on inherently U.S. topics, such as United States House of Representatives). For example, take the graph showing inflation-adjusted launch prices of home consoles (excellent illustration, btw):
  • What's OK: that it only shows U.S. console launches. International ones would be hard to compare accurately in terms of purchasing power, and the U.S. is a big enough market to serve as illustration.
  • What's not OK: that its caption is "Launch prices of selected home consoles adjusted for inflation". It should be called "...U.S. launch prices of selected home consoles, adjusted for inflation." —Blotwell 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No argument there. Feel free to change stuff like that. Indrian (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Atari's fall

Should we make good on Atari's attempt to re-enter the market, or not? The velociraptor 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Atari in the market now is not Atari. It is Infogrames who bought the name alone and rebranded themselves in an effort to improve marketshare. If any company could be the "successor" to Atari in spirit, it would probably have to be Williams who bought the licenses to a number of Atari franchises in the arcade market. BcRIPster 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. In 1984, Warner Communications sold Atari to Commodore founder Jack Tramiel. Warner retained the arcade division of the company only and renamed it Atari Games so as to distinguish it from plain old Atari. Atari Games was sold to Namco the next year, but Namco sold it to a group of Atari Games employees in 1986 to make it independent again. Atari Games also released NES games, mostly unauthorized, as Tengen. Atari abandoned the video game business in favor of computers, putting out the Atari ST, before returning to video games with the Atari 7800, the Lynx, and the Jaguar. The company merged with JTS in 1996, and the Atari name was discontiuned. JTS sold the rights to the Atari properties to Hasbro Interactive in 1998, which sold the properties to Infogrames in 2000, which renamed its American operation Atari in 2003. Meanwhile, Atari Games was purchased by Time Warner in 1993 and renamed Time Warner Interactive (TWI) . TWI was sold to WMS Industries (essentially Williams renamed) in 1996, where it was placed under the Midway division (Williams had purchased Bally/Midway in 1988), which was renamed Midway Games. Midway Games became an independent company in 1998. Under Midway Games before and after it became independent, the Atari Games label was still used by the company. However, negotiations with Hasbro Interactive led the name to be changed to Midway Games West in 2000. This division was closed in 2003, bringing an end to Atari Games. To make a long story short, the renamed Atari (formerly Infogrames) controls the rights to the VCS, 7800, Lynx, Jaguar, etc. portion of the old Atari while Midway Games owns the rights to arcade properties such as Gauntlet and Paperboy and the Tengen console games. Indrian 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oooh, good call. I double checked myself and it was homerights in addition to the title, but their focus at the time (in the materials I was receiving) was about the branding and that's why it stood out in my mind that way. I don't usually slip up like that. Thanks, and sorry if I added any confusion. None the less, the main point is still valid. There is no "Atari" per-say, anymore. BcRIPster 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Indrian 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just some corrections - 1) Atari did not abandon the video game business under Tramiel. They still continued to sell and promote the previous products and back catalog, even having a 2600 and 5200 on display at their June '85 CES booth. The backstock of the 2600, 5200, and the XL series computers is what kept them afloat for the year and a half after the takeover until they started shipping the ST's. 2) The Atari name was not discontinued under JTS, Atari became a small office under JTS and provided minimal support for the Jaguar - the name was still in use and the website was still being updated and run, there was also the Atari Interactive pc games. 3) Atari Interactive Inc. (which works closely with Atari Inc., formerly Infogrames USA), owns the trademarks and copyrights to the pre-'84 split arcade games. Midway just owns the hardware and game roms to those pre-'84 games. 4) To say the Atari Inc. around now is not "Atari" is simply unfactual, and completely ignores the fact that Tramiel's Atari Corp. was the exact same situation. Atari Corp. was simply Tramel Technology Ltd. (TTL), who bought the Atari name and properties (of the Consumer Division) and renamed itself Atari Corp. In fact, the employees that worked for Warner's Atari Inc. had to resign on at Atari Corp. if they wanted to be employed under Tramiel (or Tramiel even wanted them). It was an outside company that bought the name and properties and renamed itself "Atari". Same thing Hasbro did when it created Atari Interactive Inc. and same thing Infogrames did with Infogrames USA when it spun it off as a seperate company. --Marty Goldberg 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall Organization

This is a pretty grandiose list. We're seem to be talking about all computer and video games here when it would be more worthwhile, IMO, to have stricter sections (or separate entries) for game consoles, portable consoles, coin-op games and computer games. It gets really messy when you read about generations and I don't really see how they all relate. The PSP is listed as a seventh generation console (presumably because of its release date) but its specs are more in-line with sixth generation devices (you pay a premium to make something small, this isn't a knock on the PSP as you could say that about any handheld device). Overall, I didn't find this page very satisfying to read.

Esptoronto 16:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 3

About the quote "Grand Theft Auto III was released on the PS2 in October. It quickly became the top-selling game in 2001, and was later released on PC and Xbox. The concept of open world, free-roaming action, new to the Grand Theft Auto series, was revolutionized in Grand Theft Auto III and many claimed that the game had invented a new genre (many GTA clones were released in attempts to emulate GTA3's success)." There seems to be too much factually incorrect information here, as the first grand theft auto was open world, free roaming, and GTA3 was a Driver clone. The only notable thing about GTA3 was it's sales volume on the PS2. Going to remove this until it's backed up with facts

  • You are correct that the original statement was inaccurate, but I think you are gonig to the extreme on the other side. Certainly, sandbox gaming has a long history going back at least to the mid-1980s with games like Pirates! and Starflight, but there is also little doubt that GTA III represents a seminal moment in the development of sandbox gaming with its fully realized 3-d world that provided a more immersive experience than its GTA predecessors and helped drive this mode of gameplay to new levels of mainstream popularity, particularly on the console where this mode of gameplay was not nearly as common as on the PC. Indrian 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Question about the generation divisions

Maybe I just overlooked it, but I can't find the references for the division into different generations. Is this original research? 157.161.173.24 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find references to these generations either: Also there are already talks of a playstation 4 - http://games.kikizo.com/news/200511/074.asp - can we conceive that information about FUTURE consoles be put on a page called "The history" I agree with the aforementioned move also. Wesleymurphy 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the paragraphs above you can see the evolution of the divisions... and the constant debates about them. It's not that anyone doubts that there are in fact distinct eras. What happens is that they/we argue about how to draw the dividing lines, and there are enough contradictory "commonly used era descriptions" and approaches to when eras start and stop to cause confusion. Do you count from when a machine first shipped, or from when it became a force in the market? Do you end an era when the last of a certain kind of machine ceases manufacturing, when games stop being made for it, when ??? You'll see me argue for my views above, but I see the merit in the counterarguments as well. The final twist: The eras happened at different times in North America, Europe and Japan, so trying to cover that as well causes all sorts of headaches. So, a long winded way of saying "IMHO not original research, but trying to find a consensus on issues where the centers are clear but the edges are fuzzy." Coll7 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I realise this is a old discussion but...Yes the current structure certainly is original research. This cannot be helped for the more recent generations I suppose but for the 8, 16 and 32 bit generations- they already have fully established proper names which should be used.--Josquius 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have introduced to the WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games Talk page an initial/new catagory list structure to build and then vote on. Please help revise it.BcRIPster 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

mainframe section

i believe that whole section is unnecessary. it has little to do with videogames.160.36.86.11 03:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

what?

there used to be a section on 8th generation what happened???????????????????????????????????????????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.35.127 (talk • contribs).

Ummm, why so many ?s?

86.152.159.71 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of stamp image in this article

Looking at the image tag for Image:Stamp-ctc-video-games.jpg:

This image is of a United States postage stamp produced in 1978 or later. The copyright for it is owned by the United States Postal Service. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
  • to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)
[...] qualifies as fair use

The image is being used in this article to illustrate the subject of the stamp, rather than the stamp itself: according to the tag, that clearly doesn't fall under fair use. I'll remove the image from the article. --Nick RTalk 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeline: PS3 vs. Wii biased

The timeline seems to be very biased in favor of the Wii at the end of 2006 / beginning of 2007:

  • Sony releases the Playstation 3 on November 17, and chaos erupts at several locations in the US due to high demand and extremely limited retailer supply. Two men were shot, and many others were injured.
  • Nintendo launched the Wii on November 19, boasting an 800,000 unit launch across the United States and relatively fewer injuries. Sales surged for the Wii and it eventually sold 2 million units by the end of December, compared to the Playstation 3's sales of less than a million (nearly all PS3 units available in North America at the time.)
  • As of mid-January, Wii remains in high demand and has been perpetually out of stock at many retailers, but PS3 supply now outstrips demand. Nintendo has also been having supply problems with its DS Lite console.

Andreaskem 06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If the statements are true, there is no bias. If any of the statements are false, feel free to remove them. Indrian 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless the gods themselves are bias against the PS3 making it look worse then the Wii! Toxic Ninja 04:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard this on Gamer TV, so I reckon it's true.

86.152.159.71 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that information is true, so it's not biased. Useight 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Nogard 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Information can be true in a biased way. It involes what if any adjectives are used. It also involes conotation. So I would change it to say: Nintendo launched the Wii on November 19, with an 800,000 unit launcg and no reported injuries. Instead of : Nintendo launched the Wii on November 19, boasting an 800,000 unit launch across the United States and relatively fewer injuries.

Those Generations

Who decides when a generation begins and ends? 65.93.113.236 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally a generation is noted by what systems were in direct competition with each other durring a given time span. The start date is frequently considered to be the date of the launch of the first system in the group. The end date is more tricky but is generally set to when the group of systems have been replaced by the next generation. This is more the general rule in the industry. I'm not sure who sets that arbitrary date on Wikipedia, and I'm sure if you look around you'll find an active fight on the subject. BcRIPster 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Although one should note that these generations are fairly well defined by the video game press and commentators.--Grimboy 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


When a new generation begins is different for every company that makes the consoles. For example when Sony made their first console, The Play Station, they made it 5th generation because (obviously) 5th was the newest generation at the time. And with all companies when they make another console that means it's one generation ahead. Bottom line; Each generation progresses one step for each new console they make. (Unless it is an uptaded look of the same system just like Sony made a smaller Ps2 a few years after the first one came out) All they'll have to tell you is the generation of their first console and one could figure it all by themself. The Great Davoo 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Each generation progresses one step for each new console they make" - I agree with that statement, but obviously whoever wrote the article doesn't as they have for some reason skipped many consoles - see my suggestion at the end of this page for my reason. ZhuLien 5:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

psp the generation of handheld

psp what do you think of (A)game consoul (B)handheld game consoul or (C) nothing if you picked b you might be intrested with this piece of writeing.

psp you mabey think hey it's just like any other handheld but if so your not thinking hard enough its the new generation of handhelds just think the other handhelds the gameboy the gameboy advance the gameboy sp then one masive leap to the nitendo DS then another to the psp wow just try to imagine a handheld xbox sooner or later the hand held may even become the more dimonenit game consoul who knows they might even just make the ultimate game consoul that can play all of them who knows? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.7.136.104 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Derrogatory Links

Just removed one derrogatory link from this article... I wonder what the guy/chick that added that link had on mind ! Less than 1/4 of the page is talking about video game history, the content is also too small and adds no info that is NOT on our page... The page is almost entirely speaking about video game controversy and it exposes a particular point of view that is meant to be derrogatory to video games overall. I definetily think that this is some type of vandlism to show off some ludicrous biased view points - wiki must be neutral folks !

To those who would like to read this ridiculous page ... http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/MChwang/mchwang_researchpaper.htm

Respectfully, 201.51.58.7 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Yan Raphael

'Draughts' doesn't cross the Atlantic

I read the paragraph and Strachey and it looked like a complete non sequitur to me. There can't be that many who know this word for 'checkers' in North America. I am adding a one-word edit to clarify.--65.94.159.242 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind -- Since I last refreshed the page an hour or two ago, the first part of the article has completely changed. Now there is the word checkers as well as whole lot more detail. Perfect timing, I guess.--65.94.159.242 09:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking on 4th and 6th generation entries

just a few peripheral comments regarding the entries on 6th generation consoles/games.

There is an explanatory gap regarding the history of Sega from 1998-2002, and filling this out would be relevant to an authoritative history of video games. One reason that Sega withdrew from manufacturing their own consoles and shifted to being strictly a third party developer is that the Dreamcast was an easy target for piracy from the beginning. While games for Sony's Playstation were already being pirated by burning the software onto standard CD-Roms, (a fate that Nintendo's N64 partially avoided by sticking with cartridges), a 3rd party MOD chip was still required in order to play pirated software on the Playstation. On the Dreamcast however, software could be pirated and played without the need for installing any sort of MOD chip, a fact that contributed to Sega's low earnings for the system, which hastened their retreat from the realm of console manufacturers.

Also, details regarding the release of Halo on Microsoft's XBox are indicative of the new politics of the video game industry; Halo's developer, Bungie Entertainment, had originally planned to release the game for PC, as something of a challenge to the success of games like Starseige: Tribes. Microsoft bought Bungie outright, and considerably delayed the PC release of Halo, instead using the highly-anticipated program as a launch title for XBox, and only later releasing a PC version.

I would also suggest a (VERY BRIEF) discussion of the 3DO system in the 4th-generation heading, as it represented a unique (though ultimately unsuccessful) stage in video game history. By the bitter end, 3DO became something like an Intel of the video game world, with both Panasonic and Sony marketing consoles with "3DO inside." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.176.2 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Article Rename and possible split

This article is a redirect for the history of computer games, but is weighted towards video games, and is named history of video games. I think we need an actual article called history of computer games; we could start by reversing the redirect, making this article "history of computer games" and making history of video games a redirect to that. Then reduce the video game focus, or else split the coverage out. Thoughts? -- Akb4 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • A few historical points for this discussion. First of all, the reason this is called history of video games is because there was a decision awhile back that video games is the more general term for the entertainment medium of which computer games, arcade games, console games, handheld games, etc. are more specific sets, so the term video games does, in fact, include computer games on wikipedia. This article used to be called history of computer and video games before that decision. Second, the history of computer games article used to be separate and was never very large. I agree that the current focus here is on the arcade and console side, but it does include all the information that used to be at a history of computer games. Third, the unequal focus is more the result of where primary interest is among editors and how the article developed more than a problem with the article attempting to cover too much. A month or so ago, I started a revision to the article, that I may just complete someday, in which I plan to cover both computer and arcade/console games. I started the revision with arcade games, which has resulted in the heavy slant you see now in the early parts of the article. Having a separate history of computer games or specific genres of computer games may be advisable in the long run, but I feel they should be created as sub-articles for this article, which should cover everything generally because they are all part of one entertainment mendium and there has been too much interaction between the different facets of the video game market to do the topic justice if there is not an article that covers all of them as a whole. Indrian 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Buried in a hole in new mexico?

I find it hard to believe that the ET cartridges were "Buried in a hole in new Mexico" Where can I get some proof? The Great Davoo 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a very persisant urban myth. See the ET article for the full story. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) - X201 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the 2600 ET article does not state its not true, it simply states that the story has taken on urban legend proportions to the point that some people believe its not true. As for proof, its listed right there including the Alamogordo Daily News (with accompanying picture of said dump) and New York Times references. New Mexico was not the only location, Atari had several spots across the country where they'd dump (and crush) unsold stock. It was even done with the foundation of one of their warehouses, where stock was dumped and crushed (steamrolled) and the warehouse floor foundation laid over it. --Marty Goldberg 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Besides, referring to a landfill as "a hole" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. 64.171.162.77 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove Repeated References to Grand Theft Auto

Grand Theft Auto and the games of it's series were great games in their own right (despite some people's moral objections), but, the constant references throughout this article to Grand Theft Auto are unnecessary and unwarranted. Many, many other PC games could easily be used in this article to illustrate the progress of the PC game, like the Sim City series, the Sims Series, Total War series, or even Space Quest series. Grand Theft Auto's, and Rockstar Studio's presence on this page is just shamelessly promoting and otherwise meaningless game in the History of Video Games.

  • Spoken like a person who knows nothing about video game history. Also spoken with no sense of scale seeing as the series is mentioned by name four times in the entire article. Indrian 01:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proprosed Generations

I know all the Generations stuff is pure opinion and probably shouldn't even be in Wikipedia because it lowers the credibility of it, but it does make some interesting reading - especially when it isn't USA-centric. Anyway, if a Wii is a separate generation to a GC, then a Sega Mark 2 must be in a separate generation to a Mark 1. Of course as more consoles are added (that I don't know about in the example generation list below) then the generations should be expanded out perhaps. Anyway, the current generations talked about are just 'plain wrong'.

Generation 1:

(1972) Magnavox Odyssey

Generation 2:

(1977) Atari 2600

Generation 3:

(1981) Sega SG-1000/Mark 1, (1982) Atari 5200 + Colecovision

Generation 4:

(1983) Mattel Aquarius, (1984) Sega Mark 2

Generation 5:

(1985) Nintendo Entertainment System, (1986) Sega Master System/Mark 3 + Atari 7800

Generation 6:

(1987) NEC PC Engine, (1989) Sega Genesis + Sega CD upgrade, (1990) SNK Neo Geo AES, (1991) Super Nintendo

Generation 7:

(1993) Panasonic 3DO + Atari Jaguar + Sega 32X upgrade + Amiga CD32

Generation 8:

(1994) Sony PlayStation, (1995) Sega Saturn, (1996) Nintendo 64

Generation 9:

(1998) Sega Dreamcast, (2000) Sony PlayStation 2

Generation 10:

(2001) Microsoft Xbox + Nintendo GameCube

Generation 11:

(2005) Microsoft Xbox 360, (2006) Nintendo Wii + Sony PS3


ZhuLien 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Nice, clear breakdown. But, according to the Sega_SG-1000 article, the Mark I and Mark II had basically identical specs. And the Mattel Aquarius was a home computer with Gen2-level graphics. So I would eliminate your Generation 4.
Also, the Playstation 2 and the Xbox/GameCube shared shelf space for most of their lives, so I would not put these in seperate generations. 64.171.162.77 05:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The May 5, 2007 (Vital Facts Issue) Cassandra Report from The Intelligence Group discusses "Gaming 3.0" on page 180. They claim the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 are "third generation consoles." What they appear to infer is that this is the third mainstream generation (since mainstream culture is their focus). Though they do not specifically explain what the three generations are, maybe this niche/mainstream differentiation is a good organizational method for this article. Most importantly, however, this scheme could be verifiable and notable, while still acknowledging the full history. —Parhamr 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another mainstream (read: notable) research firm, DFC Intelligence, states there have been six generations that are defined not by product generation but by the company who has dominated the era. They are:

  1. Pong Era (1972–1976)
  2. Atari Era (two parts, 1977–1981 and 1982–1984)
  3. Nintendo Era (two parts, 1985–1987 and 1988–1990)
  4. 16-bit era (Nintendo and Sega, 1991–1994)
  5. 32/64-bit era (Sony, 1995–2000)
  6. 128-bit era.

—Parhamr 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another, this one from JupiterResearch is titled "US CONSOLE GAMES FORECAST, 2007 to 2012," by Michael Gartenberg, July 2007. He states there are seven generations, each with a "winner"

  1. first overall (1972–1976)
  2. first 8-bit (Atari VCS, 1976–1982; Colecovision, 1982–1985)
  3. second 8-bit (NES, 1985–1990)
  4. 16-bit (Sega Genesis, 1986–1993)
  5. 32-bit (Sony PlayStation, 1993–1999)
  6. 128-bit (Sony PlayStation2, 1999–2005)
  7. current (2005–present)

—Parhamr 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do the 8-bit, 16-bit thing...etc, as it never works: Intellivision was 16-bit, and it's from the VCS era, Ti99/4A was also 16-bit and it's an early 1980s computer, between NES era and Genesis we had plenty 16-bit computers, eg ST, Amiga. PC Engine was an 8-bit console and competed against Genesis and SNES. Was the SNES really 16-bit, as it has an 8-bit bus? So many unclearities. -O Sometime in Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtomtomabc123 (talk • contribs)

Article is a mess

When I was doing a multi-media essay on the history of video games, the article was more refined. Now there's a bunch of games added from nowhere, some links are removed, the times are screwed up, and run-ons galore. Mr. Raptor 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Game name searched

Does anyone remember the name of the game, where a blue diamond like point has to kill red "H"s by pressing green blocks? There are some ℍ, which divide into several H on killing. Pressing the green stuff out of the field deletes it. It runs on dos and I had it in 1996 on a 486. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was Beast (video game). --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 00:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Will start a what?

From the article: "November—Guitar Hero is released, with great reviews. Initially, very few people had knowledge of it. In the coming months it would start a video game revolution, something which was seen as practically impossible at the time."

No mention of the nature of the revolution, no citation, and no mention of anything revolutionary in the Guitar Hero article. This line should either be removed from the article or expanded upon.

Fair use rationale for Image:Game and watch-fire.jpg

Image:Game and watch-fire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Larry Rosenthal page link?

Is it correct?

198.186.144.188 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.