Talk:Pong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pong article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Tense

This article was designed so that each paragraph reads like it is happening now and subsequent paragraphs will happen later. It isn't just a mere observation of the past. --Jzcool

[edit] Pong Movie

Recently there's been buzz of a Pong movie going around the net, someone please tell me its a joke.HiS oWn 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is Pattyman 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pong hardware

Does anyone have information on the hardware of the home or arcade Pong versions? Was it analog electronics like the Odyssey? --24.114.252.183 23:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the arcade version was all analog circuitry. I don't know about the home version, but I suspect it was analog as well. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong, Pong is a digital game. I suggest you look at the schematics which are readily available. Mirror Vax 28 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Mirror Vax is correct, arcade Pong used TTL arrays for the logic and game play. The home version was digital as well, using a custom LSI "Pong on a Chip". --Marty Goldberg 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping?

I remember reading somewhere that the game was called 'Ping' in Britain (so 'pong' to mean bad smell must be a British thing?). However, I can't find any solid evidence to back this up (I'm too young to remember the original game). Can anyone confirm (or refute) this, and provide the evidence?

I'm a Brit and "pong" does mean bad smell heer but it is also the only name i have ever herd for the game. Disclaimer:I wasn't born till 1982.--JK the unwise 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging in Video Game Crash of 1977

See talk page for Video Game Crash of 1977 for details of moving its contents here and merging. Coll7 06:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've merged the Video Game Crash of 1977 with the Pong page, don't you think that the Pong page should mention the crash of '77? We're losing a lot of history by not mentioning the event, even in passing. Remember, the '77 crash was the one that convinced Fairchild to exit the market, thus granting Atari a monopoly.

[edit] Playing with the net down

Might want to mention, Higginbotham's game was more sophisticated, including "variable gravity" effects, & that he couln't have profited, because the work was done at a USG lab... (Or so Flatow sez in They All Laughed...) Trekphiler 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

PONG v. Pong? I am not familiar with the subject, is the proper title all uppercase? If not, the page should be moved. Isopropyl 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it needs to be consistent. As it stands, the article uses both; please indicate which is correct. Isopropyl 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PONG is correct for the Atari version of the game. The debate is in the "genre" title, where "Pong" describes an entire genre or type of product much like "Kleenex" became a general title as well. --Marty Goldberg 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article titled "PONG" in all caps? Unless it's an acronym/initialism, it should be spelled "Pong," per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). —tregoweth (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained in the article, PONG is a registered trademark of Atari Interactive, making it the legal and official spelling. Pong is taken as a reference to unofficial clones of the game, of which there are many.--Ianmacm 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Trademark law does not take case into account. This may be a traditional differentiation within the business, but you can't trademark something in all caps only. The article should be written according to the MoS, with an explanation that this differentiation is sometimes made by games writers. ProhibitOnions (T) 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
All Wikipedia guidelines are designed to be interpreted with some flexibility and common sense. PONG is the official Atari spelling whatever the Wikipedia MoS says. The article has been designed to make this distinction, since there are numerous games that are knock-offs of PONG and have no affiliation with Atari. Some trademarks have a capital letter in the middle of the word, including CinemaScope, although this violates normal spelling rules. Common sense is needed here, rather than rule-quoting.--Ianmacm 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The MoS already deals with CamelCase entries such as CinemaScope and unusual capitalization (iPod). As you point out, lots of companies like to capitalize their trademarks to give them greater impact. While they are certainly welcome to do so in their own publications, Wikipedia doesn't follow this, for reasons of clarity and consistency. The only trademarks that are written in all caps on Wikipedia are those that are read as individual letters, such as MCI. Pong should be no exception. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really, the MOS is a suggested guideline and does not answer ever situation (and in fact states this need to be flexible). Very specifically "The Manual of Style is not the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied thoughtfully, not mechanically. These are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found work well in most circumstances. Therefore, you are encouraged to follow these guidelines flexibly. If a rule keeps you from writing an informative, useful encyclopedia article, ignore it." As was stated, and is documented farther up, we came to the consensus to use the current format for a reason. It has nothing to do with "a differentiation sometimes made by games writers", it's a factual difference. A) There is a product called PONG, spelled that way and used that way since 1972. There was no useage for "caps for greater impact" on the marquee and manual, that's an assumption on your part. It moved to the home market in 1975. b) At the move, an industry of clones, refered to generically as "pong consoles" sprung up. The actual brand name was taken and used as a genre defining name since this time (mid 70's). Your suggestion of doing everything in lower case and just stating "well sometimes it means this and sometimes it means that because of writers" is both innacurate and simply causes more confusion. In its current state, its spelt out very clearly - PONG, the correct spellling and presentation of the name, refers to the trademarked property of Atari - the very specific coin-op and series of consoles released by Atari - i.e. what this entry is about. Lowercase or any variation thereof refers to the general genre of knockoffs/clones/etc. If you can come up with a better solution that satisfies that criteria, I'm all ears and willing to support it. But we already went through this "it should be done this way because the MoS says so" with the kb/kib fiasco. --Marty Goldberg 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To all the regulars - Prohibit and some others took it upon themselves to discuss the matter over at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) page and here without notifying the main discussion here. Consider yourself notified now and feel free to contribute. --Marty Goldberg 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I compromised and went with the proposed italics version vs. lower case for the general clone/genre. That works as well, but let everyone know here if any of you "local mob of [...] fans" (as we were called) have any gripes. Also put back in the Pong ownership statement and included several references. --Marty Goldberg 17:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Life is too short to get into a long argument over this, so if it keeps the admins happy, then the word can be spelled as Pong throughout the Wikipedia article. This has become a debate about the Manual of Style rather than the spelling of the word itself, since there is no debate that the official Atari spelling is PONG and has been since 1972.--Ianmacm 11:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PingPong

The Geek: Umm... why does PingPong (as in the computer language of that name) redirect here?

Because no one has written an article on that language yet? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Next to the link to "table tennis" in the first paragraph, I added "ping pong" on 2006 Jan 12 (which redirects to the main table tennis article), since it seemed silly to mention "table tennis" but not the more obviously-similar term "ping pong" right off the bat.

But some tiresome person reverted my edit, claiming it was not obvious that PONG(TM) is related to "ping pong", presumably since the first paragraph repeats Bushnell's claim that PONG(TM) was named after the sound he wanted the paddle to make.

First off, it is not NPOV to mindlessly accept Bushnell's claim. Just because he said it doesn't necessarily make it true, considering that just about any native speaker of English understands "table tennis" and "ping pong" as synonyms (see dictionaries), whether they are aware of the issues regarding "ping pong" as a registered trademark or not.

I believe it is passing obvious that, if you ask random native speakers of English to guess where the name PONG came from, their guess would be "from PING PONG, obviously", not "from the sound PONG defined in the dictionary", not "I have no guess". That means that any other supposed source for the name PONG starts out with some inherent skeptical burden.

Secondly, the article itself already says, further down, "Since the name Ping-Pong was already trademarked, they settled on simply calling it PONG." Which becomes obvious in retrospect, whether one has a source for the second half of that claim or not, when one learns that "ping pong" was in fact trademarked starting very early in the 20th century; Bushnell's claim is likely a transparent fiction for the sake of trademarking the term "PONG", or to give benefit of the doubt, quite possibly both reasons were simultaneously true.

Be that as it may, I didn't make an argument like that in the text of the article, I merely added the single link "ping pong". Reverting that is hostile and mindless. I'm not going to do a revert battle, but I think the community should reconsider its current implicit support of that reversion.

Whether the link should stay or be reverted is not very important in itself, but getting reverted for anything other the best of reasons (and with no discussion on the discussion page) is irritating at best, and will alienate rather than encourage casual contributors -- a rather larger and more important issue. Dougmerritt 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "playable clones"

We don't need links to every single clone ever. Let's decide which need to be here. Isopropyl 19:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The list is getting rather long and should be pruned back to no more than five or six games. ianmacm 19 June 2006

I think we only need ONE and that it should be the one that's most faithful to the original game. I went ahead and removed all but the first one on the list, though I think it's a bit faster than the original game it's still the most informative to how the original was.--SeizureDog 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should necessarily have any clones. It's just becoming a target for linkspam. Isopropyl 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
My bad, the recent additions to external links have been semi-relevant. Isopropyl 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Pong game at http://www.webdoodles.org/pages/pong.htm has been removed. This is designed to illustrate the game, so it should be put back. Does anyone object? ianmacm

I wouldn't object as it is a faithful reproduction. However, if the AI is really that good, I fail to see how this game ever took off - it's impossible to score a point off of this thing! Hbdragon88 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried a large number of Pong games on the internet and this is the only one that looks, sounds and feels substantially like the original. However, I agree with critics who say that the ball goes too fast. Also, I agree with the decision to remove the list of Pong clones as it had become too long. --Ianmacm 07:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I scored a point off of it the first volley, but then I'm used to playing actual pong games. ;) Seriously though, I don't consider it a highly accurate reproduction (as the site claims). The playfield is a different aspect, the graphics are a different width, and it does move too fast. And I don't recall the original arcade Pong being anything but two player. --Marty Goldberg 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not impossible to score points against the computer on this game, although it is difficult. There are many online games described as Pong that bear little or no resemblance to the original Atari game, but this is still arguably the most accurate. I own an old battery operated Pong console and this is the only online version that plays reasonably like it. The online version is not two player so that anyone can play it without two people being present.--Ianmacm 13:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The game speed may be proportional to cpu speed; I just tried it on a 1.5 year old Macintosh, and it didn't seem at all fast. I had no trouble volleying many times and scoring some points even though I haven't played Pong in years and years. Perhaps those of you who found it too fast should inform the author, in case they could improve it to be of similar speed on all platforms. Dougmerritt 03:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an old problem with video games, and Pac-man is a good example. If the CPU is too fast, the characters race around the screen, and if it is too slow they can be reduced to a crawl. Ideally a piece of game software should be able to take into account the CPU speed to avoid this problem.--Ianmacm 08:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ball" Shape

Just to clarify my edit of 24.86.126.191, the "ball" in the original arcade version of PONG was indeed a square (pixelated block like the paddles, only smaller). This is also true of the Atari home versions and the Atari 2600 version. --Marty Goldberg 07:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two players?

Was PONG original version meant for two players? capi 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The consoles that were sold for home use in the 1970s invariably had two paddles, so that two people could play one another as in a real tennis game. Some of the home consoles also had a squash court setting with three walls so that one player could play on his own. Also, some consoles had a soccer setting with several rows of paddles representing the players (a long way from today's sophisticated soccer console games). Some consoles even had pistols which could be used for shooting games. Incidentally, the paddles on the 1970s console games used carbon track potentiometers which often wore out due to overuse, and they often needed to be replaced as spares. The other infamous thing about the 1970s consoles was their ability to wreck television screens by burning out the phosphor coating on the cathode ray tube if they were left on for hours at at a time. --Ianmacm 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The actual answer to the question - yes, it was meant for two players. The original (meaning arcade coin-op) PONG was a 2 player game. --Marty Goldberg 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the text in the main article could be edited to make clear that the coin-op version was also designed as a two player game--Ianmacm 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the answer. it is actually unclear on the article. would like to add it up, but am kind of short on time right now. capi 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This has now been added.--Ianmacm 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark symbols

The trademark symbols (TM) were removed in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of style.--Ianmacm 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting back in. Same said manual of style clearly states "unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." PONG(tm) is set to clearly differentiate between that and generic Pong systems. --Marty Goldberg 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that as necessary at all. This article is clearly about the specific game, and putting it in the unconventional all-caps, plus defining it in the first sentence, is sufficient to establish that. --Delirium 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
RV back, still an active trademarked property. Ianmacm and myself had already come to an agreement some time ago for the single TM (instead of all the way through as I had it), and he rewrote the first paragraph accordingly. See both of our talk pages. --Marty Goldberg 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
RV back; whether it's actively trademarked or not is irrelevant, as our standard practice is not to use the symbol. See e.g. Velcro, Apple Computer, Metamucil, Kleenex, and nearly every other article on a trademarked name. Or even if you want to limit the discussion to just games, take a look at Quake, The Sims, and hundreds of other "active trademarked properties". Our standard practice is to mention in running text that it's a trademark, not to use the press-release-style symbols. Unless you plan to argue for a wholesale revision of our policies, and add TM or (R) symbols to all those articles (and hundreds more) as well, I don't see why this article should be treated anomalously. --Delirium 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And RV back again. The logic of your comparison is irrelevant, as clearly stated by our standard practices (I am also part of these "our" you mention here, and certainly not a newbie) in the Wikipedia Manual of style:"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Whether or not other contributors have chosen to ignore the guide line is completely irrelevant as well. Unless you plan to argue for a complete revision of the Manual of Style, then go ahead. Using the argument that its explained in the text is an assumption that the average reader sees the same logic and relationship you do between a generic genre name and the actual (currently exercised trademaked) originally named game, or percieves said textual explination in the same clarity and context. If you continue to revert as you have, we can take this up a notch to the admins. --Marty Goldberg 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than go round in circles on this, let's try to have a consensus. Yes, PONG spelled in capital letters is a registered trademark. It does say this in the opening paragraph. My personal view is that the TM symbol is gimmicky and best avoided wherever possible. Since the opening paragraph already says that PONG is a trademark, it would not be the end of the world if the TM symbol is not used as well. As Delirium points out, Wikipedia articles usually avoid TM symbols when describing products. The main point that needs to be made in the opening paragraph is that the original Atari PONG is not the same as the multitude of modern games that are described as pong and are unofficial clones.--Ianmacm 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, Marty, this is not a World War 3 issue. We are only talking about one TM symbol here.--Ianmacm 22:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first it was a series of TM symbols, which was compromised down to 1. Then its being pushed (somewhat agressively by another) to none with the claim of "well I haven't seen some other contributors do it" in some unwritten guideline when the manual of style clearly defines this as an exemption. In fact, articles such as Kleenex and Velcro should actually have at least one TM to differentiate per the guideline. I'm not the one turning this in to WW3, I'm used to discussing things and coming to an agreement. And I saw no attempt to do that on his part, simply an egotistical "I don't agree, I'm changing it, and to bad what anyone else hashed out or disagrees about" without trying to discuss a thing and posting a rehash of said reasoning here in lieu of an actual discussion. Especially when there was obviously a precedent discussion. As someone who works in the video game industry, there's a reason why TM's are attached to corporate names and properties in articles, reviews, press releases and other areas, especially when a product becomes popular enough to enter the general vernacular. And that's the only context I've presented regarding TM, when if I really cared about arguing on principle and legal precedent it could be pushed to argue on all properties. --Marty Goldberg 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone whose spouse used to work for Intel trademark enforcement, one TM symbol is a very big deal. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no legal precedent at all to require the use of the trademark symbol in any context, unless you're licensing the trademark from the owner and thereby agreeing to additional terms (which we aren't). Please kindly refrain from implying legal threats without any relevant knowledge of trademark law. Do you see any TM symbols in, say, this journal article, to pick one among thousands? Of course not; the editors would never allow that sort of ad-copy style. As long as we accurately explain that it's a trademark, there is no reason to use the convention of saying so that's popular in press releases and advertisements, rather than the more established scholarly convention of saying the same, which is the English words "is a trademark". --Delirium 11:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Delirum, you're a CS PHD student, not a trademark or patent specialist. Please kindly refrain from implying legal knowledge on the matter, which is obviously one you haven't delt with. I have (which is simply ridiculous for you to state otherwise since you have no knowledge of what I do or do not do in my work), Frecklefoot's wife has done it for a living, and if you like I can contact Atari's Legal Dept. who my group deals with regularly on such matters. There was no legal threat implied previously (please actually read the text before you respond), I simply stated we will take this to the Wiki admins if you continue your from the hip reverting. Nobody is talking about putting TM's through every single article and TM property, we're talking specifically about situations where the name of the property has also been used by the public in more general terms. A situation that is explicity mentioned as being allowed by the TM section of the Manual of Style. Once again, your arrogance shines through. --Marty Goldberg 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunnyvale bar

I reverted the claim that the bar in Sunnyvale, California where PONG was first tested is now called the Rooster T Feathers Comedy Club. This was partly because of the lack of a citation, and also because of concerns about using the PONG article for promotional purposes. There is a real club in Sunnyvale called the Rooster T Feathers, which has a website at [1]. Any confirmation that this is what Andy Capp's Tavern is now called would be welcome, but a mention in the article would need to be seen as relevant and not promoting the club in any way.--Ianmacm 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can ask Al Alcorn, he would know. But I agree, its not really relevant to the article. The only way possible I could see is if a picture of the place had been put up to illustrate the location of the first PONG, in which case you'd have to mention the picture is of the "Andy Capp's pub (now Rooster T Feathers)". --Marty Goldberg 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Popular Culture Standard

I'm thinking we should set up some kind of standard for what actually is notable enough to have in the trivia section. I suggest it should be limited to actual appearances of coin-ops and consoles in movies, or where the name/or game of "pong" is integral to the subject itself. The Airport '77 and King Of The Hill episode are examples of the first, and the Frank Black song and Andy Roddick commercial are examples of the latter. --Marty Goldberg 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. Lists tend to become swollen with non-notable examples after a while, and this has been happening with the references to PONG in popular culture. It would be a good idea to restrict the list to notable appearances of the classic 1970s machines in popular culture.--Ianmacm 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll add the standard as a comment in that section. --Marty Goldberg 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of article

Although most of the information in this article has been added in good faith, it could use some more references and inline citations to bring it up to Wikipedia standard.--Ianmacm 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but there's way to many requests for refernces now, when the requested info can be found simply by clicking on the items discussed. I'm going to remove a couple of them that are frivolous, and provide references for some of the others later on tonight. --Marty Goldberg 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The article remains vastly unreferenced. The "requested info" is nowhere to be found in any of the few given references. This article is in terrible condition; Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable, and the vast majorty of the content in this one is not. "Good faith" is not a substitute for fact-checking. -- Mikeblas 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that good faith is a substitute for fact checking, and would like to see the article more thoroughly referenced.--Ianmacm 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mike, I don't think Ian or I were suggesting that. Some of the requests for references were indeed answered in some of the wiki entries. Such as your request for certification for the relese of the Magnavox Odyssey, and a few others. I apologize I couldn't get to the references last night, I'll try again tonight. --Marty Goldberg 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't requested the "certification" of anything; and I don't know what that would mean. I had tagged unreferenced paragraphs in article with {{fact}}. Despite no references being added, the tags have been removed without discussion. The tags should have stayed until references became available. The paragraph I think you're referring to has about a half-dozen unreferenced claims about events surrounding a person and a couple of companies:
  1. Ralph Baer worked for Sanders Associates in 1966
    Ralph designed a way to play computer games over television sets
    He holds multiple patents for these ideas
    He made a game with more complex controls than PONG, but resembling PONG
    He demoed the game to some "heads" at Magnavox
    The Magnavox employees believed the device would sell more televisions
    The two companies "joined forces", centering the resulting organization around Ralph
    They released a product called the "Odyssey 1TL200"
Those are just the unreferenced assertions from one paragraph of this article. Content added to articles at Wikipedia must be verifiable. As it stands, we've got no references to verify that any of these entities have their names spelled correctly, not to mention any of the more interesting details. -- Mikeblas 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And exactly what I said, those are all answered and referenced in greater detail on the Sanders, his, and the Magnavox Odyssey entries, which are linked to in that paragraph and you claimed do not have what you're looking for. I.E. from the Sanders entry: "The first home video game console was developed at Sanders by a team headed by Ralph Baer. [2]", from the Ralph Baer page:"Baer is best known for leading the development of the Brown Box, the first home video game console and his pioneering patented work in establishing video games.[1]", also from the Odyssey page: "Magnavox settled a court case against Nolan Bushnell for patent infringement in Bushnell's design of PONG, as it resembled the tennis game for the Odyssey. Over the next decade, Magnavox sued other big companies such as Coleco, Mattel, Seeburg, Activision and either won or settled every suit. [2][3]" which clearly establishes whether they released the console or had anything to do with Baer and his patents. And there's more. Certification of the content (i.e. verification) is exactly what you are asking for. As I stated, there certainly is some content that needs references yet. But not to the extent that you're claiming, as shown above. Likewise, please don't accuse us of lack of discussion before removing. Ian and I (regular contributors to this article) did indeed post on the talk page and discuss our intentions before any changes were made. Not discussing would be simply removing without putting a thing here or talking between us. --Marty Goldberg 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the individual citation requests and paragraph headings and replaced them with the single unreferenced article tag at the top of the article because I thought this was sufficient to get the message across.--Ianmacm 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added some more references, which give the interested reader quite a spread of other sources to choose from. As we are always being told, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a source of primary reference. Some of the references cover several of the points raised in the article, so they are not quoted more than once.--Ianmacm 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wikified your references, using the web citation template. --Marty Goldberg 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William A. Higinbotham

The article has been given a thorough copyedit today, and during it I became concerned that William A. Higinbotham may have his name spelled wrongly. Most places on the internet seem to spell it Higginbotham, so more research is needed here.--Ianmacm 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Brookhaven (where he worked) spells it William Higinbotham, so I'd go with that spelling. Nice job on copyedits by the way. --Marty Goldberg 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Genre and Reference

Only put back two of the changes, otherwise great work again on the rest. The full genre name itself is actually called "bat and ball". Likewise, I'd prefer the reference directly to Ralph's site for that paragraph rather than the one to mine you added. The paragraph talks about more than the Odyssey, mentioning the other prototypes he worked on as well. Ralph's own site documents those things, the page on my site just talks focuses on the Odyssey. --Marty Goldberg 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

After we both got told off by an administrator the other day, I decided to give the article a thorough looking over. I could not find any major factual problems with it, and agree that William A. Higinbotham's name is spelled with one g and it is the other websites that have got this wrong. The article is now a good deal smoother than it was before, and should have enough references to satisfy the purists. Unfortunately I do not have the time to write a complete A-Z history of video games for Wikipedia, and in any case there are some good external websites covering this area already. PONG is interesting because it was the first video game to become a major success, and it was also a cultural phenomenon in the 1970s along with disco music and other such delights. This means that it deserves a slightly more detailed article than some other video games, and hopefully the article PONG now does this.--Ianmacm 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More copyedits

The article has had some more copyediting and additions. The following statement was removed due to difficulties with finding an online source:

  • This meant that despite Atari's success, only around one in five Pong-style games in arcades were made by the company. In an attempt to reduce the problem, Atari deliberately mismarked the chips in genuine PONG units to confuse people who tried to clone them.

Also, although there are plenty of references for the trial at Andy Capp's Tavern, I could not find any references for the trial in Grass Valley, California.

Finally, I was thinking of getting rid of the italics and spelling the game PONG instead of PONG.--Ianmacm 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the italics from the opening PONG in the lead sentence. BTW, please keep in mind that PONG, PONG and Pong are spelled identically. Just64helpin 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the italics after deciding that the article looked better without them. The use of italics in Wikipedia is still variable, with some articles using them and others not. Apart from expanding the article and adding references, one of the aims of the current work has been to make the article accessible to the average reader who has no specialist interest in video games. I have also avoided referring to the "spelling" of PONG/Pong, since this is strictly speaking a formatting issue.--Ianmacm 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Looking better" doesn't seem to be an adequate reason to remove italics. Italicizing is usually reserved for proper names of documents, including game software. However, PONG may be considered a stand-alone device, which doesn't need text slanting for the name. Just64helpin 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
By "looking better" I meant that some computer screens do not reproduce italic text very well. I had a look at the WP:MOS about italics and came away somewhat confused, but am satisfied with PONG rather than PONG.--Ianmacm 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout

While writing about the role of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in the development of Breakout, I have tried to avoid re-igniting old arguments about exactly who was responsible. While Jobs (an official Atari employee at the time) was asked to produce a version of the game, it is clear that a substantial amount of the work was done by Wozniak. This led to some bad feeling between the two men when Wozniak learned that Jobs had been paid $5,000, while he had told Wozniak that it was $750 when they were splitting the fee 50-50. There have been various versions given of this story, and there is some room for debate.--Ianmacm 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to accomlpish, but there's never been any doubt as to Wozniak's role as the sole designer of the electronics. Jobs did the wire wrapping for the proto that was presented. Its well documented (both on the Atari side by Alan Alcorn and by Wozniak), and never been debated by Jobs. Where the controversy has been is in the amount they were paid. Likewise, you had the wrong date - Jobs did not start with Atari in 1972, it was '74. And truthfully, it shouldn't be going in to Breakout history to much in this article, because its rehashing info already in the Breakout article. I think the entire mention should be removed and just stick to points that help illustrate this article - Breakout was an expansion of PONG, and it was also included on one PONG console (video pinball). --Marty Goldberg 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the brief reference to Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak because it is interesting to know that the two men who founded Apple (one of the largest computer companies in the world) were involved with Atari at one point. I agree that there should not be an unneccessary overlap with the article Breakout. The 1972 reference comes from [3]. Although Breakout appeared on only one PONG game, cloned versions appeared elsewhere. Due to the differences over this, I have removed the references to the role of the two men in the development of the game.--Ianmacm 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PONG in popular culture

The In popular culture section may be axed due to ongoing problems with WP:Trivia. The section is not intended to contain every film, tv show etc. that features a Pong game, but this is how it may be interpreted. If the section was removed, it would be no great loss for the article.--Ianmacm 06:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that instead of axing it, it should probably be whittled down to a handfull of notable pop culture appearances. A few movies or TV show's where its notable/integral (i.e. an actual PONG cabinet is part of the scene or an actual PONG console is being played, or PONG is a central character). Candidates for axing then would be the Wayne's World reference and the Simpsons, and that should lock out any other attempts at additions. I'd say possibly the Airport 77 reference too, but I'll have to track that down to see the context. If the entire scene takes place around the cabinet then it should stay (since it's also representative of the time period). If its just a brief glance or something in the far background, I'd say it should be removed. --Marty Goldberg 14:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not keen on axing the section entirely, but there is a tendency for people to add non-notable examples. Any section with more than a small handful of unrelated points can be described as trivia by strict Wikipedia standards, so some pruning may be necessary. The Simpsons example strikes me as non-notable, but I do not want to get into an edit war over this. Listcruft is a problem for sections of "references in popular culture", so there needs to be a consensus on what constitutes notability, or it would be better not to have the section at all.--Ianmacm 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's going to be difficult to reach a consensus as to which references are the most notable and deserving to be included here. Everyone has their own idea of "most significant reference". It is probably easier to just axe it altogether, perhaps providing a link to a different website or wiki where a complete list is maintained (if there is such a thing). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think reaching a consensus among the regular contributors will be that hard at all really. The key points I mentioned as far as whether something merits being included are pretty common points. Either the actual PONG (not just a pong type game) is a part of a scene (not just a background prop) or integral to the storyline, song, etc.. The Andy Riddick commercial is a good example, as is the King of the Hill episode (where the PONG console plays a main character and a driving part of the storyline, appearing thoughout the episode). A one line sentence from a Wayne's World character is not, nor is a brief mention by Bart Simpson in a quick gag. Honestly, its not that hard to tell the difference between someting notable and something just pop-trivia. I'm entirely against axing the whole section though, other articles manage to maintain these sections. Yes, there's going to be people trying add in useless info (just like they'll be people trying to add back in the section or a regular trivia section if this is axed). Just like there's vandalism in articles on a daily basis. And what do we do with that? Just revert the edit like on any other day. --Marty Goldberg 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your points. I just think it's going to be hard to enforce that in a way that everyone will agree on. If you guys are up for the more-or-less constant maintenance that's going to entail, go for it. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I just think it'll probably cause less headaches if we avoid it in the first place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I like your conditions for notability. I think I'll start a similar topic over on Galaxian and Galaga - they're developing very similar "In Popular Culture" sections. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, what we might all try doing is see how it works out with these few entries and then propose it to be added as a standard over at the project page. --Marty Goldberg 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just revisiting this. Its been about 2 months now and the three test pages (here, Galaxian, and Galaga) seem to be holding up nicely with these qualifications. What do you say we propose it at the main video game project page then to make it a standard for the rest of the pages? --Marty Goldberg 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPod reference

I was tempted to remove this:

  • A game exactly like PONG is ready-installed on all Apple iPod's. The game is titled 'Brick'.

This is partly because it lacks a citation, and partly because of some concerns about the notablility. Has anyone seen this game, and is it an accurate recreation of PONG?--Ianmacm 06:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here. The game is exactly like Breakout, not PONG. And yes, its on all iPod's. --Marty Goldberg 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The info may be notable enough for the Breakout article. The Other versions and platforms section contains several unverified statements, and I am not in a position to say how true they are. They were left in after assuming that they were added in good faith, although by strict Wikipedia standards they would need to be sourced.--Ianmacm 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pong

Note: This discussion was moved from a user talk page.
While I agree on the lowercase format, the regulars at the PONG entry do not. Just a heads up. Just64helpin 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's no surprise. I'm in this kind of situation all the time and pleasing the local mob of ... maybe a tad biased fans was never one of my strong points. Let's see how it turns out. In the meantime, would you help me out editing the remaining links to the redirect? - Cyrus XIII 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I personally moved the article to Pong under the same rationale. You can guess what happened after that. BTW, please contact me directly for replies. I'll be notified much quicker that way. Just64helpin 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at the move logs. I found the assertion, "the manual of style on Trademarks clearly lists this exception" particularly odd, since this is a flat-out misrepresentation of the situation. Which brings me back to the "local mob of [...] fans": While this is probably not a nice thing to say, especially since most work on pop-culture related articles is done by fans of the given subject matter, there are at least two types of fans contributing to Wikipedia. The sort that single-mindedly pushes a certain true vision and the kind which still recognizes that this is a community effort, with certain rules everybody needs to play by, in order for things to work out on the larger scale. We both probably agree on not being very fond of the former. - Cyrus XIII 11:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's a bit of an odd assertion, because there has never been any discussion of Pong on the MoS pages, never mind any "clear exception" being made for it. The burden of proof in this case is on those who assert it is an exception, not those going for consistency. So far, I have only seen individual assertions, not sources. ProhibitOnions (T) 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact this entire conversation and subsequent bumrushing of changes (including starting a discussion on the MoS page and not notifying the "regulars" that there was a discussion there in regards to this has treated the "regulars" extremely dissrespectfull. Likewise the "mob of fans". I'm a professional in the industry (both as a writer and a programmer), who also just got off a contract on the very game being discussed. As I stated at the PONG discussion page, if you can find a way to alleviate the confusion between the two, I'm all for it. But there's a reason Wikipedia's guidelines on content conflicts promote discussion first. Likewise, I have not seen a request for sources in the discussion, just an ascertation in these (until now) hidden side discussions that we provided none. Here's an example of the useage from the home console (Atari version released in '76) manual. --Marty Goldberg 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is rather clear on the Mos: It doesn't matter if they capitalize it or not. We generally don't. See, for example Kiss (band); it's not KISS, even though the group always writes it that way. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I compromised and went with the proposed italics version vs. lower case for the general clone/genre. Also put back in the Pong ownership statement and included several references. --Marty Goldberg 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sound's good. Atari being the trademark holder of "Pong" (or "PONG") might not even be all that controversial, though the assertion that the lowercased "pong" is in common, colloquial use as a genre handle should really come with references, in order to avoid running afoul WP:OR. Glad we were able to work out a compromise (which lo and behold makes you not a part of aforementioned mob). - Cyrus XIII 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That'll do it, no prob with italics. Though perhaps this conversation should be copied to the relevant talk page as well. ProhibitOnions (T) 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Just64helpin 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When?

autumn of 1972
summer of 1975

These time references are ambiguous for a global audience. Please substitute more precise time references (months, or exact dates) from primary references. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vista gadget

There is a pong Vista sidebar gadget at [4]. It is not very good, however. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but unless it was included by Microsoft as part of Vista its not very notable and just another homebrew. Someone had written one of these widgets for Mac OSX a bit ago as well. --Marty Goldberg 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some reviews of the game here [5]. Like most online or downloadable pong games, this one is a letdown. The world awaits a really good emulation that will run on a PC. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem, its can't be emulated. There's no rom, no game code, etc. On that note though, I did work on a version with Alan Alcorn that reproduced the game logic of the original arcade electronics (first time) that will be going up on Atari's website soon. --Marty Goldberg 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SUCCESSOR ATARI 2600

THE ATARI 2600 LISTS ATARI PONG AS ITS PREDECESSOR. WHY ISNT ATARI 2600 LISTED AS ITS SIGNIFICANT SUCCESSOR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because: This article refers to PONG, which is both the arcade game and has been made for home use via a dedicated console and as a cartridge for the Atari 2600. The dedicated console would be the predecessor for the Atari 2600, but there are quite a few things that came out after PONG (in general) that could be considered "successors", and we don't have a separate article for the dedicated console. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Patent and or copyright

Weeks ago i found that a pong clone was canceled because Atari still have the rights over the game. But there are two choices:

  • Atari own the pong patent but this patent must be expired (last only 20 years).
  • Atari own the copyright, so any game that don't use the name pong is right, a "pong clone" without the pong name is also right.

I'm still don't get it. --201.222.157.49 09:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with improving the article (which is what this talk page is for), but yes, they have the trademark on the name. They do not own any real patents related to it - they wound up paying a license to Sanders Associates for the original Pong. And even the patent on their specific hardware design of the game expired long ago. Likewise, they don't own any of the imagery - again, bat and ball graphics were first produced by Baer/Sanders/Magnavox, which is again why Atari had to license from Sanders rather than go through a lengthy court process to prove Nolan ripped it off from the Odyssey's Tennis (which he wound up admitting in testimony in unrelated lawsuits at later dates anyways). Whose pong clone was canceled? Was it a software or hardware version? --Marty Goldberg 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue raised here is a bit off topic, as the article is sufficiently clear on this point. However, to clarify, this is the current trademark on the word Pong as held by Atari Interactive:
Word Mark PONG
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game programs and video game cartridges. FIRST USE:
19990601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990601
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76148525
Filing Date October 18, 2000
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 4, 2002
Registration Number 2611782
Registration Date August 27, 2002
Owner (REGISTRANT) ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE 1027 Newport Avenue Pawtucket RHODE ISLAND 02862
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Doreen Small
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
This is a live trademark and Atari still enforces it. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lookup. Just to clarify for everyone, that's Atari Interactive, which is a separate company from Atari Inc. Atari Interactive holds all the trademarks and copyrights for both old Ataris (the original Atari Inc. and subsequent Atari Corp.) properties. The current Atari Inc. leases its name and usage from Atari Interactive, but owns all the original Infogrames Inc. (the USA company) properties, which includes GT Interactive and others (see Infogrames#1996-2002_Growth_Through_Acquisition for more info on what). --Marty Goldberg 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color graphics and the original Pong console

The article says that the original Pong had black and white graphics only. This is true for the 1972 arcade version. However, the advertisement from the Sears catalog from 1975 (here) says that the scoring of the console version was in color. Is a correction needed here? Incidentally, thanks are due to the user who added the link to the Sears catalog photograph, as it is very useful. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an original PONG, and yes, the score and parts of the playfield are in color. I wouldn't say a correction is needed, since the article is not mainly about the home console. But it should be added to the section on the home console. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How was the 1975 Pong console connected to a television?

Coaxial antenna socket, also known as a Belling-Lee connector
Coaxial antenna socket, also known as a Belling-Lee connector

Someone has changed the wording from "antenna socket" to "antenna screws". What did the Atari 1975 Pong console have? My 1970s cloned console comes with a flylead for connecting via an antenna socket. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All the Atari Pong's came with a standard '70's r/f switch box (same one that came with the 2600). Takes the r/f cable coming from the unit and plugs in to the end of the switch box, you'd screw the antenna connectors in to the other end, and the side has two u-shapped connectors that fastened under the antenna screws on the television. There were no "antenna sockets" at the time on general consumer televisions in the U.S., coaxial didn't become common on consumer devices until the early through mid 80's. What model is your console? I've never heard of one coming with a flylead, unless it was a)originally released in the early 80's, or b)a later European model. Atari, Magnavox, and the clones came with hardwired r/f cables AFAIK. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am from the UK where coaxial sockets for television antennas were standard even back in the 1970s. This type of socket is called a Belling-Lee connector and was invented in England in the 1920s (there is a British one pound coin in the background of the photos on this page). I have read that older US televisions used screw terminals and that coaxial connectors are more recent arrivals. Both of my 1970s cloned Pong consoles have coaxial connectors, and screw terminals for TV antennas would be considered non-standard in the UK. Belling-Lee connectors are the standard for TV and FM sockets in Europe. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, which is why I asked if it was a European thing since I know there's different standards there. There's also a *much wider* variance in pong clones there than there were in the U.S. In the U.S. coaxial sockets were really only in studio environments until the early 80's, when consumer electronics manufacturers started to put them on the TV sets. (Or the "telly" as you guys call it) ;) This might be something to consider adding to a technology section that further discusses the electronics, packaging, and connection methods. Maybe rename Legacy to Clones (which really should discuss the plethora of clones on the home market), and move the more tech orientated material from there in to the Tech section, fleshing it out with the above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nowadays most European audiovisual equipment has at least one SCART connector, although it may also have RCA connectors and S-VHS connectors. If you did want to connect an antenna with screw terminals to a Belling-Lee connector, you would need a balun. Back in the 1970s almost no televisions had audiovisual inputs, so the makers of Pong consoles used RF modulators which could be connected via the antenna socket. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture in French Wikipedia article

The French language Wikipedia article about Pong has a good picture in the infobox. Could this be used in the English article somewhere? --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Breakout2600.png

The image Image:Breakout2600.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removed from this article. I'll add a fair-use rationale for its appearance in Breakout. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Breakout was developed because Atari wanted a game similar to PONG that could be played by one person. It is a variation or spinoff of PONG, and the decision to remove the image from the article was a bit harsh. With a rewrite on the fair use rationale, it could be put back again. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think for purposes of this article, Breakout should be considered a separate game rather than a spinoff, derivative, clone, etc. It's an extremely notable game, but it makes more sense I think to regard it as a fully separate one, and for both articles to mention each other in the form "Breakout was developed with the idea of a single-player Pong in mind". But adding an image of Breakout to this article may be confusing to the average reader, since Breakout is not Pong. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to comment to Ianmacm, Atari did not want a game similar to PONG. The PONG market was long since failing, and they wanted to distance themselves from it. In fact they were working hard at that. Likewise, because of the 1973_oil_crisis and subsequent gas rationing, walking and biking as forms of transportation picked up which in turn sparked a "health kick" in the nation. While Breakout may be in the vein of "ball and bat" games started by Odyssey Tennis/PONG, it was started as an implementation of Racquetball that morphed in to a prison break theme. At one point they were actually going to have the character seen on the cabinet's side art in the game smashing the "rock" back at the wall, instead of the bat they wound up using. You can read a bit more about the history of Breakout here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. I have a magazine that did an interview with Steve Wozniak, one of the names behind Breakout, in which he stated that Nolan Bushnell's original concept for Breakout was, put simply, a "single-player Pong". The source is "Retro Gamer", a magazine in the UK devoted to discussing and reviewing old games. I was actually just reading that very interview this morning. Also, keep in mind that Breakout was created not very long after Pong, and the first design for the game was a TTL board just like Pong itself.
I'll get the actual issue number and page number for the interview later - the magazine is out in my car at the moment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its 100% true, the information came directly from Al Alcorn (project leader) and Steve Bristow (co-creator). Wozniak was/is mistaken about a lot of things, he didn't have direct contact with Nolan and company at the time of Breakout - the project came to him through Jobs. Jobs may have actually described it to him as that (pong on its side), but that's a far cry from the actual design model. His only previous contact with Nolan and company was when he showed them a personally developed pong console. Bristow is also the one who gave me the actual designer of the production version of the game, Wozniak's was just a proto-version (one of several). That's one of the reasons I did the article after working with Alcorn on a project and talking to Bristow, to set the record straight on a lot of the misinformation that still gets repeated. And I'm quite familiar with Retro Gamer, their fact checking isn't always the greatest, the articles are all contributions full of tons of errors. I'm not sure what you're meaning to imply with the TTL statements, all the pre-microprocessor coin-op games were TTL based, bat and ball based or not. And all the designs for Breakout were TTL based, including the final production version, so I'm not sure what you mean by that either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just got done reading the GameSpy article, and it appears this is another case where different sources have different, but similar, accounts. The Retro Gamer interview agrees that Wozniak's design wasn't used because it was too difficult for the Atari engineers to understand, but Woz also spends some time talking about why they wanted to design it in the first place. It is true that they wanted to diversify the market, but based on what I'm seeing in the GameSpy article, it looks like their account of it might be just a little overblown - the article is a bit sensationalized and a little scarce on direct quotes from the people being interviewed.
In any event, I still don't think this really means that Breakout is inherently a Pong clone that justifies putting an image of it in this article. The two are very closely related, but they're also different enough, and with Breakout having its own article, that crossing images would be confusing and unhelpful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your comment: (nods) I'm not saying I think Retro Gamer is more reliable than the GameSpy article, etc., and I'm not saying the sources directly conflict with one another. What I am saying is that there is some truth to the 1-player Pong concept. It may not have been the primary reason for designing the game, but it is a significant one. Technical implementations aside, the spirit of the game was to entertain a single player with a bat-and-ball/jailbreak concept.
I'm thinking that if we want to continue this particular discussion, we should move it over to Talk:Breakout, since this is really more about that game than about Pong. The original intent of this discussion was just to determine if a Breakout image should be used in this article - I don't think it should be, but I'm open to other opinions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree with you on the issue with it not being included in this article. As far as Woz's view, it's nothing new. He admits (in his book, his web site, etc.) most of what he learned about the project he learned after the fact (because everything before that came through Jobs). According to Al and Steve, Woz's design wasn't used because Woz did things in his usually minimalist fashion that didn't lend itself to the current design and manufacturing standards in coin-op at the time. Right after it was turned in, Jobs took off for his apple orchard, who was their only contact (at the time they had no idea who Jobs had do it, but they suspected it was not Jobs in the first place). So with no one to contact and no time to figure out the designs to translate them in to production standard, they just had the gentleman I mentioned from Cyan do a design based off of Wozniak's finished game. I was actually really happy to be the first to give that guy credit. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(nods again) I see. That is all very consistent, and it makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying. I see from the Breakout talk that you've had this discussion quite a few times, and also that I'm pretty far out of my league on the "origins" discussion. You have first-hand experience and much more in-depth knowledge of this than I possibly could (I was born in '77), so I'll leave the origins discussion in your much more capable hands. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic - you have my full respect. :)) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airport 77

I removed the following item from the Pop Culture section per WP:VG/GL:

User:Wgungfu put this item back in, saying that it was referenced and that the game plays a prominent role in the movie. I checked out the citation, and indeed the game appears there, but after checking out multiple articles (both in WP and outside of it), I don't see how Pong does anything more than just give the characters something to do, and reinforce the main character's role as a wealthy person with a luxury airliner. It could be any game. We either need a better reference for this particular item, or I recommend that we pull it out for consistency's sake. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Central/prominent role in the scene, didn't say the movie. What I'll do though is try and track down a copy again of the movie and get a transcript of the scene going so we're going by something more than the single reference. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If you like, I can grab a copy via Netflix and put together a transcript. Would that help, or are you going to take it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, otherwise I was going to go and buy one from a local BestBuy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture citations

why would these even be needed for the tv shows (that '70s show, king of the hill, the simpsons)? how would you even cite them? the only way would be linking to the script online, and i doubt any of these would have them. --71.203.149.71 (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The citations are needed because of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Without them, the pop culture references could be inaccurate or even completely made up. In my experience, people usually act in good faith when adding pop culture references, but some of the "Pong in popular culture" references are obscure and would benefit from citations. At least the Arcade at the Movies reference gives some reliable sourcing. Perhaps it could be in the External Links section instead. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)