Talk:Space Invaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Invaders 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do:
To-do list for Space Invaders: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Some sections may not be needed, e.g. 3 paragraphs on high score records? Add the top score only.(disputed, please discuss on talk page))
  • Verify: Cite sources
  • Expand: Add details of sequels (e.g. Space Invaders DX)
  • Disambiguation: variants may not belong. They belong under their own title. (disputed, please discuss on talk page)
Priority a  

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

I question the accuracy of the paragraph:

the remaining aliens would move faster and faster...

If the computer was just updating the screen more often, the shot and player's base would move faster as well, but they didn't. They moved at the same speed throughout the level's progression. So some elegant programming had to be involved in the implementation of this feature. Anyone else? —Frecklefoot 19:31, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's surely true that there was some clever programming going on, but I'm not clear as to what exactly you are questioning. Nobody seems to be claiming that a particular programming technique was used; in any event it's absolutely true that the remaining aliens moved faster. What's to question? Jgm 00:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The player's cannon could be destroyed three times (the player had six lives), and the game would end after the player's last life was lost." - This can't be right, can it? By my definition of "lives", the player had three. However, I'm not sure what the best way is to re-write the sentence, since the sentence structure itself isn't how I would write Jfiling 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update Speed

I have to agree with the previous poster. I once had a job programming video games in the early 80s, and although the processors were pretty pathetic, the situation regarding update speed is more complex than that the main update loop is speeding up simply because it has fewer entities to update. Trying to update a full screen of aliens at the speed of the last alien would probably choke the processor, but as the previous poster has noted, only the final alien is moving faster at the end of a round; the shots, the saucers, and the player's ship are all moving at the same speed. Only a careful inspection of the code could determine exactly how the speedup is accomplished, but in my shop, it was standard practice to implement an round-robin master routine, which would poll the controls, tick the game model, update the display, and then sleep for a few milliseconds.

  • That paragraph seemed bad to me too... I'd like to see some sources before allowing it in the article. --Yoshi348 17:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd write a polling routing for controls and video display when the 8080 CPU, or any of the CPU's of the late 70's in a standard bus/memory configuration were perfectly capable of handling up to 8 interrupts with 8 bits of data per interrupt on the hardware bus. The display in space invaders is totally independant of the mother board - it has a completely separate daughter board with its own video memory. There is not enough going on in Space Invaders to choke the CPU - even at 2khz. The sound is totally discrete, the video has its own CPU and memory, the only thing the mother board has to do is coordinate and move/copy memory. While Gorf, for example, runs at 1.7KHZ, this is slower with a lot more going on, and Gorf does not choke at all, even using 4bits / pixel.

[edit] More on the speed up issue

Also, when there is only one alien on the screen, the alien moves at a different speed going to the left, than it does going to the right, and the player's ship moves the same during this whole time.

I have reinstated text to the effect that the alien speedup is a result of there being fewer aliens to draw. It is not true to claim that everything else would speed up if this were the case. Space Invaders does not update every alien every frame. It doesn't have any hardware help with sprite drawing and the CPU simply isn't fast enough to move that much data. It wouldn't be surprising if it updated exactly one alien per frame. When there are fewer aliens, the turn of the remaining aliens to be moved comes up sooner.
As an example, consider the case when there are 30 aliens on screen. In frame 1 the first alien is moved. In frame 2 the second alien is moved, and so on. After the 30th frame, the game returns to alien 1. Therefore, each alien is moved once every 30 frames.
Now, imagine 15 of the aliens have been killed. Now each alien is moved once every 15 frames. Since the amount they move is the same, the aliens are now moving at twice the speed without any change in UFO or laser cannon speed.
This also explains why the speed difference is most pronounced when moving from two aliens to one. The time the remaining waits for is reduced by 1/2 - i.e. he starts to move at double the speed. Conversely the move from 30 to 29 aliens is only a reduction in the time each enemy sits before moving of 1/30th.
This can be verified by playing the game and watching the way in which the aliens update or, if necessary, the original game source. The 8080 is a very simple processor and the code is quite easy to follow.
P.s. I wrote the above a day or so ago, but neglected to sign it ThomasHarte 00:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above, and have always assumed this was the case. In fact, I thought you could visibly distinguish that only one enemy updated per frame, which you can see as a 'wave' moving through the formation. Can anyone verify this with an original machine or emulator? JasonAD 04:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Programmer

I removed the following bit from the article

...and programmed by California teenager David Yuh

Google searching for David Yuh show us a surgeon, not a programmer. But searching for "David Yuh" "Space Invaders" give us 3 results, and one of them indeed has an anedoctal account of a 16 years old teenager, now a succesful surgeon that coded the original Space Invaders.

Although I think this story is perfectly plausible, I would like to have some more sources sited for this information. Regards, --Abu Badali 15:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It was so popular because...

I was a teen when this game came out. I had been playing all kinds of arcade games before Space Invaders appeared, and there was one feature above all others that made this game so much more popular than all of it's predecessors. That is, if you were any good, you could play for much longer than the other machines for no extra money. On earlier arcade machines, the play time was time based. That is, there was a clock, and once your time was up the game was over. Maybe you could earn some bonus time, but once that expired it was game over. Space Invaders changed all that. In this game you had three "lives", and the game only ended when you got killed with noi more lives left, not when the clock struck 12. This has never been mentioned in other Space Invader discussions anywhere that I have seen, but this was definitely the big plus in this new game. I'd like to see this added to the article. --Commking September 8, 2005

It sounds plausable. But if we had a source that would be better. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is, I was there. What better source can you get? This was the first video game I/we saw that allowed you to play longer according to your skill level, instead of according to the clock. I welcome anyone who can say there was a video game that had this feature earlier. --Commking September 9, 2005
It might be considered original research. But if I was you I'd be bold, add it and see what happens. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's done. Last paragraph under "popular response". I am not much of a writer, so feel free to reword it if needed. --Commking September 13, 2005

[edit] Different game w/ same title?

I once had a game for my Mac that was called space invaders but looked nothing like these games. I had it back around, 1997(?). Here's a description and if anyone knows what I'm talking about and doesn't think I'm crazy, please tell me where I can find this game and/or more information about it: You start off as a little cannon that moves back and forth across the screen. The only ships that you can shoot are these little ones that change colors each time you shoot them until finally they go away. There are much bigger and more powerful ships that come and go, but you can only shoot those if you have the laser upgrade. Until then, however, you can shoot the bombs that they drop. Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?

[edit] The dance

One of the more surreal experiences in a gaming history exhibition I attended circa 2003 was seeing a video of the Space Invaders craze in Japan, which included a dance floor full of Japanese people in neatly lined rows moving rhytmically sideways. Mentioning this might be neat, but I haven't been able to source. --Kizor 11:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Space Invaders Japan's first video game?

I've been reading a bit of video game history and if I'd like to confirm if Space invaders was Japan's first ever video game? Because if it is, it might be worth mentioning in the article.


  • No. Taito first started with a a number of video games in 1973, including Astro Race,Davis Cup,Elepong,Pro Hockey, and Pro Soccer.They continued manufacturing games all through the 70's. Probably their best known "pre-Space Invaders" game was 1975's Western Gun, which was released as Gun Fight in the U.S. by Midway Mfg. Co. --Marty Goldberg 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atari 2600 Version

I disagree with the statement about the Atari 2600 version, "Not only did it capture the feel (if not the exact look or sound) of the original arcade version..."

Although you may argue that it's a subjective analysis, none of those statements are true.

The "feel" -- there was a slight delay in firing in the arcade version. The Atari 2600 version fired almost immediately, without the pause at the beginning and end of the shot.

Look -- not even close. Some of the invaders looked similar, but some were completetly different and had different motion.

Sound -- again, not close. The firing sound in the arcade version sounded more like a laser. The Atari 2600 version sounded like a pop gun.

Atari 2600 should be completely removed. Are we going to list every variant of Space Invaders? Clip it. Maybe Fast Fingered Freddie can take on this task.

Is it notable as the first widely available home-based clone of the arcade game? --Oscarthecat 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The sentence seems to be saying that it captured the feel, but not the look or sound, of the arcade game. Disagree with the "feel" if you must, but the sentence otherwise agrees with you. (Changing that "if" to a "though" might make it clearer). And, yes, I believe that the Atari 2600 version is notable as not only the first official home port of the game (outside of cheesy handhelds), but as the first third-party licenced port of a game ever. - Wrassedragon 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical movement of gun?

I have a DOS version of the game in which the gun can move vertically. This allows you to bypass the aliens and fire straight at the spaceships along the top, increasing your score more quickly. Later Windows versions only allow horizontal movement of the gun. What directions were available on the original arcade game? 172.173.170.117 10:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal only. --Marty Goldberg 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleting space invaders high scores

On my talk page, I got the message below. I'd like to continue this discussion here on the Space Invaders talk page. --Oscarthecat 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

why do you keep deleting the space invaders high scores? these are quoted from a now defunct book "Stratford Video Gaming Records, Premere Edition, 1980", which its copyright is now part of the public domain. This book is quoted all over the WWW and is hailed as THE source for video game high scores of the 80's. im a 6 year member of VAPS, 8 years on KLOV, i have a 36 game collection (including 6 SI's), I attend gaming auctions, I attend the FUNSPOT tournies, and fix boards, including SI's for people all over the world, including boards for Gail Henshaw, SI Player Extraordinaire. What makes you an expert in SI that you need to delete this information?--74.96.172.96 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
I did remove the high scores from the Space Invaders page, which I notice has now been reinstated. I do not dispute the accuracy of the details, but I do take issue with the notability of these details, to me it appears as WP:CRUFT. Perhaps I'm over-eager in keeping the article on-topic, but would appreciate the thoughts of others. --Oscarthecat 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I only removed the high score section once, in this edit. I did not repeatedly remove it. --Oscarthecat 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree more with 74.96.172.96. High Scores (especially long standing ones) are hardly fancruft and is pretty common to see in arcade articles. In fact, their keeping is part of a long standing tradition as evidenced by the plethora of books at the time (such as the one the original editor used) and professional organizations (such as Twin Galaxies). Fancraft is defined as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", which would apply more to trivia and such. --Marty Goldberg 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
and you claiming that a large population of normal people are interested in 30 year old high-scores and it's not triva? honestly? --Fredrick day 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Right. It's trivia (as are speedruns) and has no place here. Especially if it's being sourced to a 27-year-old book! I mean, come on; if we're going to quote a high score for the game, let's at least make sure it's the current record holder and not a 30-year-old artifact. — Amcaja (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say yes, its importance is just as relevant as including who the record holder for high jumping, or drinking records or other world records that are common to include in encyclopedic article entries. The job of an encyclopedic entry is to inform the reader, who may not be aware of the entire spectrum of facts (i.e. not useless tidbits of trivia) surrounding an entry. And as someone who writes and works in the video game industry, I can honestly say that such records are not trivialized. With regards to Brian's 27 year old comment, that does not make a lot of sense by reference standards. Whether a book is 50 years old or 2, its still a verifiable reference. What it may not be is an up to date reference, which can not be proven otherwise unless you find a valid and more recent reference that states other figures. --Marty Goldberg 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia/cruft and doesn't belong. Just about anything can be sourced: that doesn't mean it's an instant must to included in articles. RobJ1981 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying: Let's find a more recent reference that quotes a high score rather than relying on one that's 27 years old. The nature of world records is that the change, often quite frequently, from year to year and month to month. The authors of this page need to do a little more research before including such information. — Amcaja (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, excuse my spelling, English is not my first language. Let me tell you I am a retro-gaming addict and self proclaimed expert in the field. This topic truely saddens me. Trivializing the high scores of any of the big-6 (Si, Pacman, Asteroids, Frogger, Galaga and Donkey Kong), is a very bad thing to do. The top scores (or at very least, the TOP score), needs to be included for SI because the high score record holder played the game for some 36 hours. This is a 30 year old game, the fact that the record is 27 years old should not be the basis for exclusion, and if a record supercedes this feat, it should be posted. We're not trying to set precidence that all video game wiki's should have a section on high scores, but any game that is played straight for an unusual amount of time may be trivia, but is certainly not trivial. Most SI faqs on the web contain the high score information, but emphasise the human vs machine accomplishment, not the score. Just like Pacman faqs contain the record holder of the PERFECT PACMAN game (256 levels, right to the split screen bug), SI being its predecessor deserves its own homage. SI is a special game, akin to Computer Space, Pong, Pacman and Dragons Lair, they spawned and shaped the evolution of an industry that is very much enjoyed today. We're not talking about some obscure game - We're talking about SPACE INVADERS. It needs to be honored properly. Please, I emplore you - do not allow some Wikipedia rule about trivia get in the way of honoring this game as it deserves - How can any relic of human culture be properly represented as long as its definitional rules are absolute - Alexey Chernobrov 74.96.172.96 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, there's been a lot of talk about all this. Some strong opinions going around. I like Brian's suggestion of finding a more recent reference and adding a line or two about the high score, rather than a section listing (largely irrelevant) details about the top scorers themselves. Resonable compromise, everyone happy ? --Oscarthecat 05:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So, Brian, you're suggesting that a record that is, say, 1 year old and lower than a record that is 27 years old, is more valid because it's newer? Regarding research, the original scores that were posted in this wiki sure match the scores I have in my edition of SVGR and I have yet to see it broken. However, this entire conversation has taught me one thing. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for high scores, and for the sake of the integrity of this trivia, I'd be happy at this point just to leave the reference out completely.
Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a 27-year-old book does not tell us who the record-holder is now, and we should make every effort to figure out who the record holder is now. There's quite a good chance someone has broken the record in this 27-year-old book. — Amcaja (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Relating feats of rare gameplay to that of athletic bests is fully appropriate. Scores and stories should be mentioned just as record holders in various other activities would. I would rather they be included when cited from reputable sources, old and new. Even if legend, such stories and legends are intimately connected with any encyclopedic coverage of this era of video game. ∴ here…♠ 07:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reinserted a shorter version of the high score reference. This is in no way trivia when discussing a subject such as this. There is clearly no consensus to remove, and the information is verifiable. Please leave it in the article. I believe it deserves further expansion. ∴ here…♠ 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good as it stands, makes the notability clear, and doesn't get bogged down in who the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc people are. --Oscarthecat 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: so Space Invaders wasn't the first game with a high score facility, see here. Paragraph saying this has (rightly) since been removed by other editors. --Oscarthecat 12:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it and provided the reference to Sea Wolf. Its a common missconception that Space Invaders was the first, and mostly because a certain resources a number of years ago stated it. You have people reference that on websites, other people reference those sites, and so on. Right up there with the missconception of Galaxian being the first color game. --Marty Goldberg 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I grabbed it straight from High score. ∴ here…♠ 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and I just changed it there as well. It was an unreferenced passage over there, so someone had probably just grabbed it from somehwere else they read it (i.e. the sources I was talking about before) --Marty Goldberg 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this page is MASHED

It seems a few users/admins have CLEANED up the information regarding this game. Now this wiki is full of falsehoods and is very misleading regarding the gameplay and later releases. Also, there's more information about SI hybrids and pop culture than the actual game itself. There was some really good information on SI on wikipedia in the past: just look the history. Now the SI page has been turned into an interpretation of what this game is, thanks to users like Fast Fingered Fred Day, who has a need to edit and chop facts that do not peak his interest. And Fred, this is not a flame, just go up and read your justifications for removing the high scores. At least Mr. Oscar's argument had merit. Furhermore, I don't understand this policy of removing RELATED information because it's deemed trivial. If it's related information, it should be available for others to read - what does this hurt? Hard drive space is cheap, guys. Also, there are other approaches than just chopping out information: Perhaps you could ask yourself, "can this bit of trivia be reworded to make it adhere to wikipedia's policies?" Back to my high scores example, if you dont like the STATS of high scores because it seems like fun-facts, then try rewording it first, (ONLY AN EXAMPLE): "SI had such an impact on the teen culture, that in 1980, 12 year old [whatever his name] scored [whatever the score] and played the game straight for 36 hours - such feats of marathon game play were common in this era, as indicated by book _Stratford Video Gaming Records_, ISBN: 000whatever000" - If someone is going to wikipedia to search and read about SI, I would think that all facts concerning would be beneficial. If the topics are properly categorized, then readers can skip the information they are not interested in. I also recall this wiki had a reference to a specific japanese coin shortage caused by SI, but this fact is also gone. But the fact exists in all the other SI faqs roaming around the web, including on The Klov. Wikipedia's model certainly seems flawed for the fact it's based on the policies of Britannia and the likes, where ommission of trivia and funfacts, etc. were justified because their encyclopedia's were BOOKS that took SPACE and had a limit to what could be published due to cost. Well, we are in the electronic age now. The justification for these policies no longer apply. Wikipedia, a community contributed content site, should be democratic when removing information that others spent much time posting. But shoot first and ask questions later seems to be the policy. A fine example of censorship where the few decide what is available to the many.

Right from the Wikipedia foundation page:

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

I guess they should add: "Unless it's trivia or fan fare, or fun facts or something fast fingered freddy doesn't deem interesting" 69.126.12.34 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is that long whided dribble written at the start of this???!?! --Mikecraig 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


The pacman wiki contains a reference to the perfect game, an argument I made above. If this is valid for pacman, the similar reference to SI's highest score should be sited for the SI wiki - Alexey Chernobrov 74.96.172.96 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

all that means is that nobody has got around to cleaning it up - "what about article X!" is not a valid argument. --Fredrick day 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fred, point taken. But it seems the pacman wiki is locked, so i guess a regular peon like me can't give it the enema it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.172.96 (talk) 22:39, May 24, 2007
Registering an account will allow you to edit Pac-Man. If you would like to contribute to the project, and why wouldn't you, take the time to get a username ;). ∴ here…♠ 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken reference link

Reference number 4 is a broken link 85.211.188.99 15:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arcade cabinet

The Cocktail/table cabinet version reference of the game is missing. I actually own one and was looking for more info on it. Here is the URL to a pic of it (on right side): http://www.madocowain.com/Arcade/Auction/13Jan2001/mspacman_spaceinvaders_2.jpg - It's interesting, as the screen is actually black & white, but over the top of the screen is multi colored tape, about half an inch wide, applied vertically. So, as the space invaders move down, they change color. Anyone know anything more about this version? --Stacks77 12:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All the US versions of Space Invaders had color overlays. That's how color was added to the black and white games back then. --Marty Goldberg 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playstation Space Invaders

I used to have a game, which I think was just called Space Invaders, for the Playstation. It played just the same as the original Space Invaders, but had much better graphics. It also had power-ups dropped by the mothership, including shields, and special missiles that took out more than one Invader. Is this the same game as the Super Space Invaders mentioned in the article, or is it something new? Daibhid C 20:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The images are pretty bad. Not based on their own individual quality, but what they are as a whole - not one single image tells me what the game looks like. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an image of the gameplay and will put it up a little later. Just not sure if it should go in the infobox or the "Gameplay" section. I've been trying to find a screenshot of the title screen for the infobox but haven't had much luck. Also, there were a couple of images in there that showed gameplay, but I've commented the out when I rewrote the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC))
Very nice, I like that screenshot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of images, I'm sure there's something better we can find to put in the infobox. Maybe the title screen or at least the logo. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
I moved the gameplay image to the infobox. See what you think....Asher196 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's better than the alien that was there. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Atari 2600 content

Let's try to sort this out, as I was hoping to take this to GAN and FAC in the near future.

Regarding the dates, I'm not sure what to say. Practically every source I've seen lists the year of the Atari 2600 version as 1978. I'm a little surprised the manual says 1980. But hopefully we can figure this out together.

Regarding the port/licensing statement, I think I understand the distinction you're trying to make. By licensing you mean it was not a rip off of an arcade version but an official version licensed by Taito. Is that right?

Regarding the website sources, I don't think www.thedoteaters.com would hold up well at FAC. They've been very strict on writing style and proper sourcing lately and I don't want to take any chances with an article of such importance to the VG project as this one. (Guyinblack25 talk 07:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

As far as the licensing issue, the distinction between "first port" and "first license" is very clear. Space Invaders was not the first port, when in fact all of Atari's launch titles for the 2600 in 1977 were ports of their own coin-op games. (The pack in cartridge Combat for instance, consisted of ports of Atari's previous arcade games Tank and Jet Fighter). Space Invaders has the distinction of being the first licensed game, as in a game produced by another company and whose property was licensed to be able to port it. The first game to be licensed for home use via consoles, computers, etc., with Atari getting the license in 1979 and publishing in 1980. As far as sources, what is "practically every source"? Every actual video game source out there lists 1978 for the arcade release, not the 2600 release, are you sure you're not confusing the two? In fact I'm struggling to actually find sources that list anything other than 1980 for the release on the 2600, and quite frankly this is the first I've heard anyone try and promote a date other than 1980. The 2600 release was in 1980, as the games own manual states, as the reference I gave (that you requested and the Dot Eaters is a longstanding reference site in the community), there's also the following reference from the Ultimate History of Video Games, by Steven L. Kent, pg 190 -
"Early in 1979, Manny Gerard made a suggestion that further increased Atari's leadership in the video-game industry. Like everyone in the industry, Gerard knew about Space Invaders. One day it occured to him to license Space Invaders and convert it into a cartridge for the Video Computer System. Kassar loved the idea.
Taito agree to license Space Invaders to Atari. It was the first time that an arcade game had ever been licensed for home use. Kassar, whose marketing sense proved nearly uncanny, predicted that a home version of Space Invaders would be such a major hit that people would buy VCS's just to play te game. He focused most of his advertising budget into promoting the game. The result was the best selling game of 1980."
There's also Master of the Game - Steve Ross and the creation of Time Warner, (1994) by Connie Bruck pp164-165 -
"The company's video game division, Atari, had lost money for several years. But in 1979 Atari had licensed "Space Invaders," a program for coin-operated machines, and produced it for its VCS (Video Computer System) 2600.....Until this time, Atari's marketing strategy had been that of a hardware business; now with the Space Invaders hit, it became clear that it was the software that would drive sales.....In 1979 Atari made a 6 million profit, in 1980 it would escalate 10 fold to nearly 70 million."
Zap! The Rise and Fall of Atari (1984) also documents it pretty well. There's also plenty of well known Atari history related sites that record the same dates and more info (atarimuseum.com comes to mind). This NextGen article also mentions it. AtariAge and MobyGames' entries both have the 1980 reference. I can put more resources here if you want. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand the distinction now. I'm sure that's probably what the source material intended to convey. However, we have a discrepancy among references now. The Ultimate History of Video Games is a very good and trustworthy source, and states 1980. But the Master of the Game source stated that Space Invaders was licensed in 1979. The RetroGamer source I used stated 1978, and GameSpot lists 1978. [1] (I know out of all of these GameSpot is probably the least reliable, but it is still a source stating 1978.) Add in the NextGen site with 1980, and we've got a bit of confusion. Is it possible there's a regional (US vs UK) difference in the release?
In regard to the Dot Eaters source, if you can establish that they are a reliable source, then we can use that to address an sourcing issues at FAC. Unfortunately, being respected by a community of fan does not meet Wikipedia's guideline for a reliable source. But, if some of this community includes industry experts, then that's a another story. Has the Dot Eaters been referenced in newspapers, magazines, other reputable websites, and/or TV? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
There's no discrepancy between Master of the Game and Ultimate History. Both sources state the licensing was done in '79 and the game was released in '80 - there's a different between "license" and "release". Also, it takes time to code/develop a game. You take time (months) to license a property, more time to develop the code, there's play testing, packaging development, advertising, distributing, etc. The retro gamer source is incorrect, it wouldn't be the first time - they don't have the greatest track record in accuracy. I sent an email off to the editors asking if they ever printed a correction in a subsequent issue, I'll let you know what they reply. As far as GameSpot, its a database entry that was probably entered incorrectly (they most likely had the coin-op release date in mind) - if you notice, the copyright on the box image they use also clearly states 1980. There's also its first appearance in Atari's own game catalog, where it first appears in CO14356-Rev. D also released in 1980. Atari's catalogs were packed in with the game systems and given out at dealers, since until Activision game along you only had the games the manufacturer made. No, there's no US vs UK difference in release other than if anything UK Atari games were actually released later at the time. Development was done in the states, not the other way around, Atari was a US company. Quite frankly, I'm still quite surprised at all this - the game itself was first released in the arcades in '78, you wouldn't have a company immediately licensing an unknown title (unless you're using hind site and applying later industry practices to this time period assuming they were done then?) . It was licensed in '79 because of the popularity it was achieving after its release, hence the reason for it having the landmark as being the first licensed game. Also quite frankly, I'm astounded at being in a position to have to defend a well known release date for a product that I myself also purchased when it was released. I.E. I'm not someone looking back in hind site trying to make sense of something that was before my time - I was actually there, which is what makes this almost surreal.
As far as the dot eaters, yes, that site and Phosphor Dot Fossils are well referenced and noted among historians. Having both been around for many many years actually (mid 90's). It'd take time to dig up everything, but as far as websites a google search would turn that up. Regarding further resources, atarimuseum.com is probably the most credible resource on the web regarding Atari history. Regarding industry experts, for future reference I am one of those as well if you're not familiar with me. Besides actually being in the industry (writer, coder), I am also a professional industry historian (i.e. paid for my services and knowledge of the industry history) which included a paid position at GameSpy/[ClassicGaming.Com] for 7 years (maintaining a knowledge of the industry was actually written in to the contract), as well being interviewed by newspapers and magazines as an authority, collaborations with other authors, published material, etc. Besides still authoring articles at classicgaming, my latest article as a freelancer was at gamesindustry.biz here (which also happened to be Atari related. There's actually a number of industry people active on Wikipedia. Frecklefoot is one that comes to mind immediately. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry the recent string of edits and discussion have not been the best, however, that is Wikipedia for you. Though in all honesty, I'm a bit happy to have bumped into someone who is knowledgeable about this game as I've only played it probably a couple times when I was a kid. Any help you could offer would be much appreciated in getting this article to Featured status. Regarding the year issue, I normally try to find some middle ground between sources if there's a discrepancy. But if there are ample sources stating 1980 then we should go with that. I'll rewrite that last section to suit the information better.
Regarding getting this to FA, I'm not certain if you are familiar with the WP:GAN and WP:FAC process, so forgive me if I state something you already are aware of. I would like this article to be as accurate as possible, but ultimately per Wikipedia:Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What this boils down to is that reliable sources need to be used to verify information so readers can do their own fact checking in need be. What constitutes a reliable source is sometimes debatable so questionable sources are discouraged even if the content on there is factual.
So while I have no doubt you are who you say you are, I don't think your word alone will be enough to sway the reviewers at FAC. Any information you may know of that could establish some of the sources you've mentioned as a reliable source would greatly ease the process. It wouldn't take a lot, just a couple of sources already considered reliable to have used it as a source. Like an IGN or newspaper article quoting info from there or a news program (ABC News, NPR, etc.) citing them. If not, them I'm sure we can make things work with the source currently here.
Anyway, what I'd like to propose is that if we work together—you providing your industry knowledge of the game and me providing my knowledge of the policies and guidelines of FAC process—this article could be prepared rather quickly. Being such an important and old video game, it would have a good chance at being featured on the Main page if it passed FA this year. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC))
I'll certainly help out with FAC where I can. My main reason for getting involved had been the Atari related portion of it, being that I'm part of the Atari Task Force. As far as my credentials, I was mainly bringing that up because you mentioned about industry professionals. As far as a resource, just replace it with the Ultimate History reference if its to much of an issue, that's why I mentioned several sources on the talk page here. So either way, however I can help out bringing this to FAC, I'd be happy to. I still have fond memories of when the coin-op was released. First saw it at a local Ground Round when they started adding video games in the establishment that year (the building is no longer there). Was odd, because it was set in the dining area itself - the chain (which I'm assuming you're not familiar with) was a pub type atmosphere with wooden booths and tables, silent movies, folk singers, food served in baskets, old signs on the walls, etc. Here's a picture I found of what it looked like during that time period (before the chain was remodeled to look like a "family" restaurant in the late 80's). Basically a restaurant that's a cross between a pub and a rec room. So when they threw a Space Invaders cabinet in the middle of all that, it was a site. We got it pretty early in '78, and my guess is that it was because of the location (Milwaukee being just north of Chicago where Midway is based). Wasn't long before it was being played non-stop, and then a section of the place had some of its booths removed to turn it in to a makeshift arcade. Apparently they felt like they were starting to make money money at video games compared to what they'd loose in food by removing that seating. Buts its typical of the time, when video games were entering the golden age and really expanding outside the traditional bars, bowling alleys, etc. in to other non-traditional locations. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go a head and add back in the correct 1980 date then, but with the Ultimate History and Atari's own manual as references instead. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been caught up with the FAC for Halo (series). After that's done with, I'll focus my attention to this article. The Ultimate History reference should suffice. Though I'm sure the game manual would be good for the gameplay section. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC))
The problem with using it for the gameplay section is that the manual is specific to the 2600 port and that section (along with the bulk of the article) is refering to the arcade coin-op. It'd be more accurate to use a reference to the coin-op operations/service manual for that section. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
True. I suggested using the Atari because the gameplay shared many similar principles—like the objective—and assumed we did not have access to such a document. Do you have the operations manual? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC))
Yes, though I know there's a couple places with online pdf's of them that I'll dig up. I think it'd be better to link directly to those for readers to look at themselves. For future reference (in case you work on any other arcade games for FAC, the manuals for just about every popular coin-op are still available (including most lesser known games). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. That would be great. Since we're talking about areas of improvement, perhaps you can help fill in a few blanks. The major blank right now is finishing up the "Re-releases and sequels" section. But one area I think would really round out the article would be information concerning the distribution of the arcade. Is there any such info in Ultimate History of Video Games? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC))