Talk:Pong/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.", 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. " 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How was the 1975 Pong console connected to a television?

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)

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)

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)

Airport 77

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

• In the film Airport '77, children and their nanny play a cocktail cabinet version of Pong Doubles located in the plane. (reference: "Arcade at the Movies". Retrieved 2007-10-02. )

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)

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)

Inflation

"The first consoles retailed at $100, the equivalent of around $400 at today's prices." What a funny line! It's as though 1) inflation has stopped or 2) wikipedia is destined to disappear. Wouldn't "the equivalent of around $400 in 2005 USD" be more appropriate? MotherFunctor (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is always risky to write for Wikipedia articles in a way that may go out of date. US prices adjusted for inflation can be calculated with the online tool here. The most recent year that it will allow is 2007, and it gives $100 in 1975 as $416.12 in 2007. This means that the figure in the article is not substantially wrong, and there is the option to update the article if things change. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Pong:Included in MAME

I have MAME 0.99 and it is includes Pong internally.

On their readme (i am forget version), their said removed driver for Pong and some betting game (mahjong) You can still play pong.

I like pong, so what I must talk to MAME team ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.194.63 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an attempt to do a simulation of Pong from the schematics. Pong can't be emulated, and since the simulation wasn't exact it was taken out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also a philosophical discussion about that in the MAME forums a while back: Because Pong didn't have a CPU/ROM structure, the argument became whether or not MAME was strictly an emulator, or also a simulator, and technically Pong can only be simulated, not emulated. The main author's decision at the time was that this meant that Pong shouldn't be in MAME at all, whether it was simulated accurately or not, because it went against the purpose of the program.

Unfortunately, we can't help you make contact with the MAME team here. You can try their forums, but I doubt you'll be able to convince them to put Pong back into the emulator solely on the grounds that "I like it". MAME is a serious project dedicated to technical preservation and documentation of CPU/ROM-type games. "Fan service" is understandably lower on their list of priorities. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the MAME team had been threatened with some legal action over the betting games (video slots, poker, etc.), and Nicola's decision to exclude them was also based on the spirit of the project. I think in this case, he'd argued that betting games were not video games in the same sense as games like Pac-Man. I know that others in the project had also argued that because casino games are tightly regulated by the US government (and other governments in other countries, obviously), there was more than just copyright infringement at stake in the emulation and reverse-engineering of the security stuff in those machines. They were now stepping into an area where the government was directly involved, unlike in the case of "simple" arcade games. Overall, better to just not go there with those devices. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pong, Home console?

Should'ent there be a seperate article on the home console version of Pong as the Arcade and the home console are interily different concepts. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by different concepts. Home Pong was designed by the same person who did the arcade version (Al Alcorn, though with the assistance of two others then), and was done literally by reproducing the arcade version in a smaller logic circuit format. I don't see much of a difference, its not like including the 2600 on the page. One is literally directly involved with the other. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie, but the first Pong was a arcade machine, while the Home version was a home console. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While there's certainly a lot of separate information about the two, there's also a lot of overlap. It's easier to present it altogether because most of the background and legacy for each is the same. Combining them into a single article makes both topics much stronger and more informative. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Ok, that's good enough a reason, I'm not going to edit this aticle, as it is informitve enough on it's own. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up for GAN and FA

After looking through the article here are some general thoughts about how to clean it up. I'd say the main thing to focus on is proper sourcing. I found a few extras to add in once we start the rewrite. Most of the current sources don't cover everything in the article, and are in my opinion questionable for an FAC. Also, the two atari.com pages just go to a default homepage. Of the current sources, here are my question marks:

• pong-story.com
• samhart.com (looks like a blog)
• armchairarcade.com (though they were one of PC Mag's Top 100 sites in Spring 05)
• everything2.com
• computermuseum.50megs.com (looks to be a self-published website)
• electric-escape.net
• 8bitrocket (looks like a blog)
• atarimuseum.com (though I think they've been cited by reliable sources)
• flickr.com (I don't think photos can be sourced like that)
• skinz.org
• recroom-amusements.com (looks like a privately owned business site)
• mameworld.net (looks to be a self-published website)
• lyricstime.com (doesn't look that reputable, and I think we can just cite the song for this)
• theinspirationroom.com (looks to be a blog)

If you can find any credentials for these, post them here so we can sort through them. Also, the External links looks like it needs some tidying up. How about we trim it done to just the Atari homepage?

I added a "Gameplay" section, it's small, but still necessary. It could probably use some tweaking. Quick question, could the game go on indefinitely? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

If this article was nominated for GA or FA status, there would be a huge fuss about some of the sources. Some Wikipedians believe that anything that has not been written by a New York Times journalist or Harvard academic is automatically unreliable. It is in the nature of video gaming that many of the websites have been compiled by enthusiasts rather than professional journalists, but this does not necessarily mean that they are sloppily researched. The external links section is not excessive, although some pruning is possible. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources are always a concern at FAC, but I think we'll be able to find some good ones to form a solid foundations.

My main concern with the current external links is that they are mostly the same questionable links already used as sources. If we can't have them as sources, then they probably won't offer much as an external links. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

The only references I have to state should not be on that list is Pong-story, armchair arcade, and of course Atair Museum. David Winter's site is *the* defacto pong reference on the internet,David is an exclusive world wide collector and archiver of Pong consoles, documents, material, etc. His site has also been recognized by USA Today, yahoo, well known computer museums like Digibarn, University sponsored libraries such as IPILand his reference/resource providing has been sited in articles like this Gamasutra one, and this CNN article's timeline text. David, as well as his site, is the goto guy for any Pong and Magnavox Odyssey related (he and Ralph a specific relationship together that is documented there as well as through Ralph, and video releases such as this one, and news announcements like this). He's also been published in the subject in books like Video Game Explosion, his site used as an endnote reference in Sun Tzu to XBox, and has been a speaker at the Paris Game Developers Conference. And that's just stuff off the top in the little time I had to write this. I'm pretty sure his site's been used in Retro Gamer as well as in other books.

As far as Armchair Arcade, there's the one you mentioned plus GamaSutra search.

Atari Museum is the same issue regarding David Winter. Curt and his site are internationally known and recognized as the main resource for Atari history, documentation, resources, etc. the current Atari has a working relationship as well because of that. Here's coverage at Wired, here's a book (there's five that come up at googlebooks), here's a tv show, he and his site are used as reference in this GamaSutra series. That's just in my limited search time right now, wanted to give examples across periodical, book, video, and online. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, that squares away that. I'll take a look at his site and start writing up some of the sections. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Reread, added some more stuff regarding two other sites just after you added the above comment. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll check those out too. The Armchair Arcade is a bit weak compared to the others, but let's keep it for now in case we need it for something we can't find a source for. I marked the other ones that are no good.

Two quick questions: Does the game go on indefinitely, or does it stop once a score is reached? And what books do you have on the subject? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

First one to 11 wins on the arcade version, 15 on the home version. Plenty of books, interviews, articles, etc. Also, keep in mind that this article is covering the game property itself as well as the genre of the same name that spawned from it (much like how Kleenex was a brand that became the widely used general name for all tissue paper, or Q-Tip for cotton swabs). Also, just noticed the 8bitrocket site on the list, that site's authors are published at gamasutra. Look up the Atari history articles. Likewise, the articles being referenced at 8bitrocket are actually fully referenced and noted if you take a look. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

8bitrocket and Armchair Arcade look usable, but let's not rely on them to start with. Let's get the essential content from the most reliable sources and use those two to fill in the blanks if needed.

I didn't realize the word "Pong" conveyed that much—I haven't come across much info about that, still reading up on the development. I think the main focus should be on the original game itself, but the genericized trademark usage can be explained in the legacy section and mentioned in the lead. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

It is important to realize that the word Pong can mean a range of things. The original use of the word PONG (all capitals) is the "official" Atari version, which is registered as a trademark. However, the Internet is full of unofficial Pong clones, and even the Atari version is acknowledged to be based on a game for the 1972 Magnavox Odyssey. It would probably be true to say that there is no original Pong, since the generic idea can be traced at least as far back as the William Higinbotham game in the 1950s. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can be seen that way. But there was a PONG, and the different uses are derived from that version and are part of its legacy. The naming and usage can be introduced/clarified in the lead, and further explained in the legacy section. Given the amount of information about Atari's version, I think the article should reflect that and focus on it.

I don't think the fact it is a derivative game should be an issue for the article. Alleyway, a Breakout and Arkanoid derivative, was able to reach FA. We just need to make sure the information is organized in a way that all viewpoints are conveyed, which I think is possible.

Here's what I'm thinking for the article structure:

1 Gameplay

2 Development

2.1 Arcade release

2.2 Home console release

3 Impact and legacy

3.1 Remakes and sequels

3.2 In popular culture

Some other sections may need to be created/removed depending on the content, but this is what I think will work given what I've read so far. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Scope and topic

I realize that's the format we went with in Space Invaders, etc. but that may get a little tricky here. We need to compartmentalize the arcade version vs. the home version better, since both were important and major products and events in their own right (which I realize you may not be familiar with, and which simple hindsight may diminish) and almost deserving of their own individual articles. I'm concerned that the proposed article structure portrays the coin-op version in more importance while moving the home version to an "also developed" status. While the coin-op version set the arcade video game industry moving forward, the home version started the home console industry moving forward and were many people's actual first experience with the game, sparking media coverage, etc. Here's a news item video from the time to give you a little more of a sense. Here's two articles from time as well that denote the separate impacts the arcade PONG had, and the home versions had. Having combined Development and Legacy sections will tend to diminish this as well. Likewise, issues like the lawsuits don't really fit under Development, unless you're using Development to cover the entire history of the unit, in which case it should be Development and history. We also need to decide, are we talking about Pong the property (in which case the Genre needs to be given equal coverage), or Pong the arcade game (then promoting everything else as springing from it), a mixture of both, or etc. Also, I'm thinking we should archive the rest of this page to make room for this discussion. Is there a bot or something that can be set up? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If this article were refocused to cover the entire genre, what would the cut off be? Would we just be talking about the exact knock-offs like Allied Leisure's Paddle Battle and Midway's Winner? Would it be including contemporary variants like Leader, Pong Doubles, Rebound, and the hockey-style games? Home derivatives like the Coleco Telstar and Odyssey 100? What about later variants from Breakout to Warlords to Arkanoid to Alleyway? Seems that is the first decision that needs to be made, because depending on how one decides to cut it that could be a whole lot of information requiring daughter articles with links to this page to give the full story. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

One quick question- When did the lawsuit pop up? I haven't come across the exact date yet, but assumed it popped up a year or two after 1972.

In regard to the structure, it can be changed. I threw in the "Arcade release" because I noticed there's a good deal of information about it. But we can incorporate it into the rest of the development/history section. And I didn't include a section for the lawsuit because I didn't think there would be enough content to adequately fill it, but we'll see how things go.

The structure may look to give less importance to the home version and genre, but I think it really depends on the content we write. I think it's possible to have a mix that's structured like a regular arcade article, but still convey the different and widespread impact it had. Besides, if things aren't going well one way, we just change direction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Just want to get something clarified, these two very reliable sites [6][7] list the lawsuit date as 1976, after the home console began selling. However, most everything I've read talks about it as if happened a year or two after the arcade release. Is June 1976 the date to go with? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

That first site is completely unreliable, you'll notice my response in their comments area. Way to many errors, and the entire thing was part of a PR campaign by Brookhaven - articles and press releases appeared all over the place that day as part of their "50th anniversary" celebration. As far as the date, you'll notice Ralph simply states court proceedings started in '76, not that the lawsuit itself first started then. A paragraph up he states notices were sent out by Magnavox three years after the licensing agreement between Sanders and Magnavox. As far as the current format of the paragraph here, it needs further revision - the lawsuit was not over tennis, it was over the technology for displaying and interacting with objects (symbols) on a television screen via a video signal. That's what the initial landmark patents being protected were about, and why each company lost. Nintendo is the one that, in a later lawsuit, dragged out Higinbotham in an attempt to show earlier technology. It failed because a) There's no direct interaction between the player and any symbol (which is what the patents cover, interaction between player and machine controlled symbols), and b) No video signal. Not to mention the display had been pretty much unheard of and on display for a few days 20 some years before. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway to find out the date or at least the year when the lawsuit began? That's the main piece of information that has really stumped me, and I've held off finishing the development section because I'm not sure when it fits into the timeline. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

I'll try and do some digging. BTW, the section on the angles of ball return after hitting the paddles is unreliable. The hardware for the ball works on circuit timing, not precise angle returns. The paddles are divided in to 8 segments, and while the two middle ones do indeed reflect back (90 or 180 degrees depending on how you want to look at it), the others are not precise angles. I'm noticing it came from the Steve Kent reference - that's why I had stated you have to be careful using that book as a reference. A ton of errors in there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the angle sentence. Let me know if it's more accurate.

Also, I was thinking of moving the "Lawsuit from Magnavox" section below the "Home consoles" sections. Mainly because the home console began development before the lawsuits started. I think this would put things in a more chronological order. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Images

Just tossing out some ideas.

• Move the screen shot image to the "Gameplay" section (left-aligned) and move the arcade cabinet image to the infobox.
• Add a cropped version of Image:AlAlcorn.jpg to the "Development and history" section.

The others look fine where they are to me. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Impact and legacy

Just going through some small tidbits in this section and was wondering if anybody could help with some research.

• Any other notable Pong remakes besides the PlayStation one?
• I'm having a hard time finding a proper source for the song "Whatever Happened to Pong?". I tried finding a cite music template, but had no luck.
• Not sure what to do with the remaining ones listed. Any thoughts, or just axe them?

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

I'll see what I can dig up. One other thing regarding "Atari has also released the game on numerous platforms", its important to differentiate that they've released versions of the game in general and not released the arcade version on numerous platforms. The arcade version had no code, and has various behaviors and mechanics (because it is a state machine using TTL based logic for all game mechanics) not duplicated in the home versions. Great job on the material and rewrites, I'm busy working on resources for the next section of the handheld game console article as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky sentence. If we add any more remakes I was thinking it should be changed to "remade". Maybe just remove the sentence altogether depending on how much content we add.

I'll try to finish this section sometime this weekend and put it up for GAN, or maybe go straight to FAC. Not sure. Once this section is finished, we should go through the hidden content to see if anything else needs to be added. Almost done! :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Almost done. I rearranged things a bit to improve the flow of the impact section. Let me know if it works or not. The last items I think are left to do are...

1. Expansion and sourcing of the decline paragraph (3rd paragraph in "Impact and legacy").
2. I remember our first discussions focused on the Pong/ball and paddle genre. I don't know if what's currently in the article portrays this or not. Some suggestions and sources would be helpful.

After those are done, it should be ready to go up the quality scale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Mortal Kombat II

I'm curious why no one seems to think that Pong's inclusion in MKII as a hidden game is notable or warrants inclusion? It's not like it's some throwaway reference where it's merely mentioned, it's a fully playable game with MK elements included, and only requires a single sentence to list. I notice that there is a sentence that mentions Banjo-Kazooie but doesn't even state how that game is notable concerning Pong, it only makes vague mention that it "references or parodies" Pong. A little consistency would be nice... Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should be included in the pop culture section because it's more of a remake than a parody or reference.

In regard to its removal, I would have removed it the second time as well. Mainly because the source would not be accepted at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Though IGN is a reliable source, the editorial oversight of cheats.ign.com is not equivalent to the rest of their site.

If you happen to find a more appropriate source, I don't see a problem adding it to the "Sequels and remakes" section. If you'd like, post the link here and we can check it out the website's reliability against Wikipedia's policies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

OK thanks, I don't generally mind having my work edited, but a logical reason is always appreciated. I'll see what I can find in the way of better source, and go from there. Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but a logical reason was provided in the edit summary and I resent that implication that there was not. It was clearly stated "non-notable trivia, and pop-culture section is not about clones." As guinblack repeated, it doesn't belong in the pop-culture section. Likewise, there is a problem adding it to the sequels and remakes if it doesn't meet notability requirements. What makes it more notable than the many other pong style clones and remakes, both hidden and non? A source would have to demonstrate that. Otherwise, the only notability demonstrated is the fact that MKII has a hidden game, a fact which is suitable for inclusion in the MKII article but not in Pong. At that point, what game it is becomes arbitrary, it could just as easily be any other game hidden in there then. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment

Support. I'm a tiny bit iffy about Baer's picture in the article, but understand too why it's there. Maybe the caption could be tweaked to relate more directly to the second it preceeds? Other than that no issues whatsoever.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Baer's picture being where it is. While he's relevant to the Atari/Magnavox issue, his picture doesn't actually relate that closely to Pong itself. I think it would be more informative if we used a pic showing Baer with the Odyssey or its packaging to show the similarities between that and a home Pong unit. Also, I agree that the caption needs tweaking, but I'm not sure how to fix it without making the caption too long to be useful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, an image of the Odyssey itself might be even more suitable - the text the image is near would explain the relationship plenty well. Since Baer was not the creator, inventor, designer, etc. of Pong, I think having his image in the article might confuse readers as to what his role is here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Switched the image. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Much better. Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: This article is in good shape and has plenty of good sources backing up the material. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I remember Pong in a yellow and black cabinet. If the yellow and black cabinet was, in fact, more common than the wooden one pictured, I think the picture should reflect that. 206.9.209.247 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea one way or another. But if you have a free image of a yellow and black version, then you are welcome to upload it and debate which is more common. Until then, this is the best we have. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Yah, even if it was less common (which it may well be), we'd need a notable and reliable source stating that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A Google image search turns up pictures of Pong in a cabinet with wood grain siding, not the all yellow with black version. The images of advertisements from Atari show the wood grain version. So, the image used for the article probably should be of a wood-grain version. However, it would be better to replace the current image with one that shows the controls. In the current image, the controls are hidden by glare.

Does the image have to be strictly free? Could a proprietary/restricted image be used if the copyright holder gives some sort permission that allows use on Wikipedia and similar? 206.53.193.195 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, we can only use a non-free image when a free one is not available. Since we do have one available, the only way to replace it is with another free one. So yes, the photographer would have to release their copyright to the image with a public domain or creative commons license.

We do have a close up image that shows the controls. There's even an extreme closeup one. But I don't think it's that necessary as the home versions show the controls well enough, and both versions use the same controls. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

HomeMade PONG

I was interested to build my own PONG game but i cannot find any schematics other than those that includes integrated circuits like AY-3-8500

If anyone knows where I can found a Schematic without integrated circuits please contact me or answer down there...

Thank You

»Edit«

I've found this link if anyone is interested should get a look... I personally think i'll build that one of this days...

--Lessio (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just realize that circuit will most likely not output NTSC, it's from an Australian magazine. If you're that interested in building one from scratch, there's already kits out there you can get. Such as the one thinkgeek sells. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggistion to move all first-genration game consoles to the "home version" section

none of the home pongs are notable enough to have their own article, and the home pongs section would be a better place for them.

- I'm bored a lot 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imboredalot (talk • contribs)

In progressive rock

I thought someone would like to add to "in popular culture" a reference to the sample of Pong sounds at the beginning of the song "Time to Kill" from the album "Free Hand" (1975), by the progressive band "Gentle Giant". You can hear it on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.175.228.145 (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything particularly notable about this? Does the band, or (preferably) any third-party reliable source, actually talk about the fact that sounds from Pong are used in the song? While it's pretty likely that such sound effects actually came from the game, given the album's date, there are a LOT of songs that use these sounds, and sounds very much like them. From personal experience, it's very unlikely that just the mere presence of the samples would be notable, but if it turned out that this was the first song to do this, that WOULD be a notable fact, and we would need a reference stating such. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What Kiefer said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

Steve Wozniak and Pong

I've read several accounts that describe Steve Wozniak as an early designer of Pong, or at least the home version of Pong. Notably:

"I saw arcade games—the first arcade game, Pong, that really made it big—so I designed one of those on my own. Then Atari wanted to take my design and make it the first home Pong game. They said to do one chip, which was better for the volumes that they would have--to do a custom chip. Steve Mayer came up with that idea. But I was kind of in with Atari and they recognized me for my design talents, so they wanted to hire me." — Steve Wozniak in Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston

I suppose the issue is clarified here:

"I dropped by, he [Steve Jobs] invited me in and I showed off my little Pong board [A copy of Pong he created on his own time -Ed.] and they were kind of impressed at how few chips it was and wanted to hire me, then we did Breakout. [...] Oh yeah. I met him [Nolan Bushnell] back then; he offered me a job when he saw my Pong game." — Steve Wozniak

Actually, I'm not sure anymore. In the first quote, Wozniak states that Atari wanted to use his design for the home version of Pong. He might be referring more to hardware design than game design? Nevertheless, I think there should be some mention of Wozniak in the article, especially with regard to Pong as a stepping stone to Breakout. Adraeus (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of clarifications - they looked at his design as one of several possibilities for a home version of Pong. They already had a single chip version in design at Grass Valley. The manufacturing of the single chip version was very important, as it lead to their connection with Synertek and the then Synertek employee Jay Miner, who was eventually joined Atari and was integral in the design of the Atari 2600 and 400/800 computers. Second, there was no game vs. hardware design, as there was no code. The hardware was the game back then. Third - Wozniak did a prototype of Breakout, not the actual production version. His Breakout design was never used. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The connections to the actual Pong are rather minor in my opinion. Or rather, they are minor compared to the larger impact Pong had for video games. I'd say any info about Wozniak and his work on his version of Pong and Breakout belong in his own article and Breakout (one day I'll work on that article...) as it is more relevant to that game's development. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

• Marty Goldberg: Thank you for the clarification. BTW: game design ≠ software programming.
• Guyinblack25: A minor relationship with a major figure is still a big deal.

Adraeus (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adraeus, I'm aware of what Game Design is, I work in the industry. However, Wozniak had nothing to do with designing the game either. The game itself was designed by Bushnell and Steve Bristow, and then given to Jobs to implement (who then of course brought in Woz to "help"). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adraeus- I agree it is a big deal, but it is more of a big deal to Breakout, Atari, Apple, and Steve Wozniak. The information should be adequately covered in those articles. Adding it to this article is tangential and deviates too far from the topic in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

According to iWoz, Wozniak saw Pong at a local bowling alley and was intrigued by it. Being the engineer he is, he decided to make his own version. He developed essentially a "clone" for his personal use, though his version displayed insulting and "colorful" messages when a player missed a ball. IIRC, Atari founders saw it and were impressed with it and offered him a job. He declined, preferring to work at HP. All the Breakout stuff happened later, but he had no input on the development of Pong. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Breakout clones

I don't think the sentence:

Breakout was followed by numerous clones that copied the gameplay: Arkanoid, Alleyway, Break 'Em All.

is accurate. The "clones" it lists followed Breakout by 10 years or more, and they are more akin to "enhanced remakes" than true clones. While I don't doubt Breakout was cloned by numerous entities, the ones listed don't qualify. I suggest we find more contemporary examples of true clones and remove the existing examples. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Clones aren't really limited by a time frame. Clones of snake games appeared on cellphones as much as 25 years after they had their heyday in the 70's coin-ops. Likewise clones themselves here are defined as "A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series". The others can possibly be removed because we simply don't need multiples to illustrate the point but I don't think Arkanoid should be removed, as I don't think there can be an argument made that Arkanoid and Breakout aren't intimately tied and together define the entire ball/brick genre. And of course Arkanoid is usually tied to Breakout as being a [breakout style game]. It'd probably be best just remove Break 'Em All and Alleyway and change the wording of the sentence to something like "Breakout was followed by numerous clones, including games like Arkanoid which expanded the game play." That accounts for the expansion of gameplay but still keeps the ties. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

This is in the Daily Mail today. At least the Mail is honest enough to admit that a chunk of it is lifted from the Wikipedia article:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even then there's a bunch of errors in it unfortunately:

1) There was no official release date. The 29th is just when they started actively promoting to distributors. They first started selling PONG in the beginning of November, when Nolan managed to sell 300 after three phone calls.

2) Bushnell and Dabney didn't help to develop Computer Space for Nutting, it was their game completely. They licensed it to Nutting for manufacturing.

3) The description of the tv/cabinet is half right. The 4 foot cabinet was built by Ted Dabney over the weekend and he was also the one that found and modded the TV for the special cabinet. He and Al then worked together to cram everything inside.

4) The home version was released in 1975, not 1974.

5) The picture of the boy playing Naughts and Crosses (Tic-tac-toe) is not from 1975. That's of course the Fairchild Channel F, which was released in 1976.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pong sales

Right now the article states that Atari sold 35,000 units of Pong. While this is one of many numbers that has been broached over the years, it also appears the least likely to be true. Someone like Marty Goldberg that has done more extensive primary research into some of these matters could perhaps shed more light than I can, but here are a few basic facts to chew on:

First, two sources are given for the sales figures, Steve Fulton's history of Atari on Gamasutra and Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games, or at least that is what someone reading the article would think. In point of fact, the Kent reference is only about how the game was imitated, not sales figures. In fact, Kent believes that Atari sold 8,000 units of the game, 2,500 in 1973 and the rest in 1974 (see page 54). Now, I try never to believe a word Kent says that is not a direct quote because at least half of it is dead wrong, and the idea that Atari sold more Pong units in 1974 than the year before is laughable for reasons touched on below, but it already goes to show that another source wikipedia considers reliable gives an alternate figure.

So that leaves us with Steve Fulton's word. Unfortunately, dedicated Atari enthusiast as he is, Fulton is not a professional journalist or researcher, and his article also includes errors, which are in this case the errors of his sources. With the exception of an interview he conducted personally with Bushnell, a known distorter of the truth, Fulton relied entirely on fairly common existing sources, and he did not appear to sift fact from fiction in cross referencing those sources. While there is much good information there, there is plenty of bad as well. Also unfortunately, while Fulton does a great job overall of citing to his sources, he does not cite to the 35,000 figure, so we cannot say where that came from.

Now, the Atari Historical Society (http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/arcade/pongrestoration.html) gives another figure, 38,000, and also discusses serial numbers. I do not know if Curt Vendel based those sales on documents he has obtained or serial numbers he has seen, and this is one area that Marty Goldberg can potentially elaborate on. While Mr. Vendel is incredibly knowledgeable and definitely right most of the time, his site also does not make clear where the 38,000 figure comes from, so without more information I would not rely on it either.

That brings us to another fun number, 19,000. This is the number given by Pong Story (http://www.pong-story.com/arcade.htm), another generally reliable site that can also make mistakes (for example, on the very same page it calls Allied Leisure's Pong clone a licensed version, which is contradicted by an interview with Allied engineer Jack Pearson that will come up later in this detailed analysis). It is also the number given by a 2009 book called Computer and Video Game Law: Cases and Materials that I have not read but is used to justify that number on the page List of best-selling video games. (Full disclosure: That number was changed after I challenged the 35,000 figure over there as well) Anyway, neither source makes clear where this number came from either, so I see no indication that it is more or less accurate than 35 or 38 thousand.

That brings us to figure number 3, 8,000 units. This is the number in the previously mentioned Kent book of dubious repute, as well as the more recent history Replay by Tristan Donovan (page 25 for those keeping score at home) that appears to be far more accurate on the whole, but it also comes from another interesting source as well, a September 1974 article in Oui Magazine (See people really can be interested in magazines like this just for the articles). Fortunately available, in part, online at http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2009/12/500004031.05.01.sm.pdf, this article features a direct quote from Atari sales manager Pat Karnes that Atari sold 8,000 Pong machines. Now some people might say that when this article was researched (probably sometime in the Summer of 1974) Atari could have still been selling units, but if one consults the informal chart kept by Ralph Baer pertaining to video game sales that he reprinted in his memoir In the Beginning (don't have it here right now so cannot give a page number) it is clear that video game sales fell off a cliff in 1974 because the Pong fad died (gradually recovering thereafter until exploding in 1979 thanks to Space Invaders). This makes 8,000 a believable, though not necessarily accurate, number.

Finally, there is Pong's creator, Al Alcorn, who in issue 83 of Retrogamer gave an interview in which he thinks Nolan is full of it when recounting sales of the game and claims only 3,000 or so were made. That number is almost certainly wrong, and Alcorn's memory has not been perfect on all issues, but it is another indication that a smaller number is more likely than a huge one.

Now in addition to these raw numbers, we can also put these figures in the context of the day. According to two sources, an interview with Allied Leisure engineer Jack Pearson with Gameroom magazine that appears to have disappeared but can be viewed at http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20071012131634/http://www.gameroommagazine.com/index.php?main_page=infopages&pages_id=10 (told you I would bring Pearson into this) and a talk given by former Allied head of manufacturing Troy Livingston and summarized at http://www.pinballnews.com/shows/expo2005/index8.html, Allied produced 12,000 or 22,000, depending on source, units of Pong clone Paddle Battle, and Pearson believes they outsold Atari because of superior manufacturing. Now I am not going to take his word for it, as that is speculation, but it is a fact that Atari had shoddy manufacturing in its early days and it is believable that a better organized company could outsell them. Furthermore, according to Baer's informal charts, Williams and Chicago Coin sold 7,000 and 5,000 units of their pong clones respectively. In this context, sales of 35,000 Pong machines seems wildly out of place.

I do not claim to know for certain that the 35,000 number is wrong, or whether any of the above numbers are right, but there are too many contradictory figures to accept the Fulton source as irrefutable. As such I will remove it from the article but encourage more evidence to be brought here. Indrian (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think removal is the best course of action (especially when it breaks the citations used else where in the article).

In cases like this, it is best to list the different number with attribution. The reader can then see that there is no definitive number. I think the Fulton, Kent, Retrogamer magazine, Oui magazine, and Gameroom magazine would be good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Well you see, the problem for me is not the range of figures so much as a determination of reliable sources. I do not think the Fulton article is very reliable because it is essentially a fan piece despite appearing on Gamasutra. Before deciding on a range of figures, a determination of reliability needs to be made. Also, I would like to give Marty a chance to weigh in (dropped him a line on his talk page last night) because he potentially has access to additional materials that could help determine the reliability of the numbers presented. Indrian (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I believe WP:NPOV still applies here. When there are conflicting view points on facts, we should present the various views in a neutral manner. Gamasutra has a history of reliability, so I don't see any reason to discount Fulton's numbers. Otherwise we'd be cherry picky. The reader can determine if which numbers to believe. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, you are right about that really being the only way to handle it, but I would still like to see if Marty can shed further light first (if he so chooses). Indrian (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. He knows more about Atari than anybody I know. Is he aware of the discuss? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

I left him a talk page message last night, so I assume he knows or will next time he logs in. Indrian (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I double checked with any resources Curt had and unfortunately there's no physical record of the sales that either one of us is available of. Just verbal communication of sales that would then wind up in print. We had both been told by Nolan and Al (at different times) that 38,000 units in total (including upright, cocktail, barrel, Puppy and Dr Pong units) had been sold. As for why Al more recently changed the number, that could be because he's speaking out more and not following the Nolan party line as much. The most I can do is ask him why the two different numbers from him. As for Pat Karnes and his claim in the Oui magazine, I know that whole early 70's period they went through a slew of marketing and sales management because of performance issues (the company was facing almost constant pressure for bankruptcy and even did layoffs). Also as far as the manufacturing quality, it was indeed cheap during that time. They had issues with cheap components (several revisions were made during that time) and the PCB itself (I have one from '73) is made in the very low cost style of foil contacts and lines laid directly on to the board on both sides vs. actual layers in the pcb. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good, just to add a little more to the puzzle, Al Alcorn also claimed 3,000 units in High Score back in the early 2000s (this was a direct quote by Alcorn, not a paraphrase, reproduced on page 22 of the 2nd edition. "There were probably 10,000 Pong games made, Atari made maybe 3,000" As for Karnes, his own bio at http://www.agtlng.com/executive_team.aspx says he was employee number six at Atari and an article in replay magazine partially reprinted at the same site as the Oui Magazine one that looks back on Atari on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its founding and appears well-researched (http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2009/12/500004028.05.01.sm.pdf) says that Karnes came on board as sales manager sometime in 1973 and left after a "falling out" with Bushnell sometime in 1974, after which Lipkin stepped in (the article is not clear on whether this falling out is when he cleaned house with Wakefield and the rest). By all evidence he was there for most of the important period in question. Also, since the Oui article is about hyping Atari's success, he is probably giving as generous a figure as he feels he can in the piece. Nothing definative, nothing to automatically favor that number over others, but Bushnell's claim of 38,000 really seems suspect based on all the (admittedly limited) evidence. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's speculation, but I'm thinking the 38,000 is actually all the "Pong's" together and not just the variations I mentioned above. I.E., Pong, Quadrapong, Pong Doubles, etc. since those would all just be variations of the same game in their mind - Pong. That would be much more plausible for the count and would explain the drastic range between the two main counts. I tried looking over Nolan's court testimony from the original Magnavox case but didn't see anything regarding actual sales figures. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly logical and quite possible. I would be interested in waiting for a response from Alcorn if one is forthcoming and unless that colors matters further would propose using the 8,000 and 35,000/38,000 numbers with appropriate sourcing and explanations of having no document that gives an official final tally. Indrian (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just found another source. Barrons National Business and Financial Weekly from Sep 17th, 1973. Barrons states that in fiscal '73 ending on June 30th, Atari had sales of $3.5 million on PONG. At about $1000 a machine (technically $937), that makes 3,500 machines sold by June of '73. They were just going to be coming out with Space Race that July, so none of those sales include that. It's possible sales went to 8000 units through '74, my only problem with that is that PONG was joined by PONG Doubles in September and Super PONG in February '74. Assuming those are going to cannibalize regular PONG sales, it was most likely less than that. Al wouldn't know full sales, he wasn't in marketing and wound up taking a "leave of abscence" as well to take care of his mom who was dying. I can check with Lipkin though, we've interviewed him several times now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Touched on this on your talk page, but without any details. A Business Week article dated November 10, 1973 gives sales as 6,000 units. A Time Magazine article from 1974 (well, technically, the version I have is dated 10/5/1983, but it is a reprint from 1974) gives sales of 8,500 units. This is in addition to Pat Karnes, the company's original sales manager who joined pretty early in the company's history, giving the over 8,000 figure in Oui Magazine as discussed above. Lipkin would not have first-hand knowledge because he did not become sales VP until after Karnes left the company and after the Pong craze was over (unless he held onto some documentary information that preceded his time there, of course). Less reliable, but Ralph Baer's vintage spreadsheets from the period also give 8,000 in sales, meaning he most likely pulled that figure from a contemporary source (according to his book he was mostly taking figures from Playmeter, but since Playmeter was not publishing yet in 1973-74 it is not clear where his early figures came from). Not a conclusive source on its own, but more corroboration. In its second fiscal year, Atari had revenues somewhere between $12 million (1975 People Magazine article) and $14 million (aforementioned Time Article). If we are talking ~$1000 machines, that makes for a ceiling of 15,500 to 17,500 total unit sales for Pong, the early Pong variants, Space Race, Gotcha, and early Gran Trak 10 sales. Its probably a little less since Atari did have some other revenue streams in place. We know Space Race and Gotcha were relatively modest performers, and while I have never seen even remotely reliable sales figures for the Pong variants, I have also never seen a source that claimed they were particularly hot sellers. Gran Trak became a hit, but its sales straddle the end of the 1974 fiscal year and it had some early production difficulties, so it is hard to say how much it contributed to the FY '74 results (well, hard for me, you may have more solid figures there for all I know). Even if Gran Trak did great business in the first half of 1974, however, I don't have too much trouble believing that around 50% of all Atari game sales in the first two fiscal years were Pong units. The reliable sources I have seen on Pong sales strongly support a final figure somewhere around 8,000, though of course this early period in video game history is still often shrouded in mystery and still other sources might be out there somewhere that can shed further light on this issue. Indrian (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just revisiting this briefly, according to Al there was a second production run of PONGs in '74. Also, the price changed over time according to the production numbers sheet released by Scott and dropped to a $700 ROI at the time. Interestingly as well, Al mentioned that second PONG flyer (the color one that says PONG by Atari) was produced years later (beginning of Warner) when they needed another 'tear sheet because they couldn't find the original. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517011435/http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20061129-pong-video-games-nolan-bushnell-atari-al-alcorn-nintendo.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20061129-pong-video-games-nolan-bushnell-atari-al-alcorn-nintendo.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked, a year later. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Pong

I played the game pong in the summer of 1972 in a back room at Austin State University where they were working on the program for pong....That it was created there by a team of programmers who at the time had access to the third largest computer in the world....I was spending time with my Aunt Janice & Uncle Ray Gay who were on that team at the time although they were being transferred to Boston or somewhere close to there.....One day they took me & my brother to work one day & showed us the rows upon rows of computers & the cards you used to feed the info to the computer by using a language of ones & zeros....My Uncle explained to me how the computer knows what you want it to do by the way you put the ones & zeros together...Of course I didn't quite understand since I was only eleven but I do remember vividly being taken in a backroom & shown a machine that a screen on both sides & dials & they showed us what to do & me & my younger brother played for hours...We had lots of fun & probably were the very first test subjects without even knowing we were..... Leonie.jl54 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Hardware

It would be interesting with more information on the hardware.

Is it analog?

95.109.80.179 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Pongs cultural effect.

I found this short film on YouTube, and it is a perfect demonstration of just how iconic pong has become.

The New Politics by Joshua Wong (2005)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB1Zy7nA_Hc

Graham1973 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Release date

Why does the infobox say the game was released on 29 November 1972? The article itself only says that they began advertising the game at that point, while no actual release date was provided. Researcher Michael D. Current quotes the WSJ on a December release date. 93.159.251.2 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Geartooth: Please read this section before reverting, thanks. 2A02:908:1019:4820:9820:EBF6:4F54:C327 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you perhaps provide a direct reference to the WSJ article in question? Lordtobi (✉) 11:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I originally opted to just use the Michael Current source for this but that might not work out. As I understand it, announcement is point where arcade game manufacturers tell arcade hall owners that they can now buy the game. Unless the WSJ, which I currently do not have access to, says something strikingly different, we should just leave the date as is. Lordtobi (✉) 08:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pong's monitor was not oriented vertically

I think this image should be sufficient to make the case. That monitor is as horizontal as can be. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the infobox text says "Vertical orientation" when the image of the monitor in the cabinet is horizontal. Could someone explain this, or it will be removed. I can see this edit summary, but the wording is potentially confusing to an average reader.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That is indeed an error, one that has existed since 2007. Lordtobi (✉) 08:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I had initially interpreted "horizontal" and "vertical" differently (from my time as a television engineer BITD), to mean a reference to the plane of the monitor face: a monitor in a standing console would be vertical whereas a monitor in a table-top console would be horizontal (like walls and floors). I now see the likely correct interpretation in this case is more akin to "portrait" vs. "landscape", which are often-used terms for that meaning (perhaps used more often in that context than "horizontal" and "vertical"). It might be worth updating the infobox template documentation "display" parameter to clarify the meaning of "monitor orientation" and/or perhaps suggest the terms to be used. In any event, I'm satisfied we can close this discussion (since I'm the one who, in an edit summary, suggested to open it). --hulmem (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a gif animation of the gameplay

but I am not sure if the file is too big for this article. Is it too big? if so, please help me reduce its size. WikiJunkie (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. It is good fun to look at and unusual to have a GIF of the gameplay in action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Home Pong series

Maybe we should add an own article for the Atari Home Pong series because there were a total of 21 consoles released in the series and if we would mention that in this article, it would be too long. What do you think about that? Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)