Talk:PONG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PONG article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Kirby Super Star Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

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

Contents 1 Pong Movie 2 Pong hardware 3 Ping? 4 Merging in Video Game Crash of 1977 5 Playing with the net down 6 Capitalization 7 PingPong 8 "playable clones" 9 "Ball" Shape 10 Two players? 11 Trademark symbols 12 Sunnyvale bar

[edit] Pong Movie

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

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

[edit] Pong hardware

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

Yes, the arcade version was all analog circuitry. I don't know about the home version, but I suspect it was analog as well. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, Pong is a digital game. I suggest you look at the schematics which are readily available. Mirror Vax 28 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ping?

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

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

[edit] Merging in Video Game Crash of 1977

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

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

[edit] Playing with the net down

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

[edit] Capitalization

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

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

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

[edit] PingPong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "playable clones"

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

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

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

I don't see why we should necessarily have any clones. It's just becoming a target for linkspam. Isopropyl 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad, the recent additions to external links have been semi-relevant. Isopropyl 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Ball" Shape

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

[edit] Two players?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Trademark symbols

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

Putting back in. Same said manual of style clearly states "unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." PONG(tm) is set to clearly differentiate between that and generic Pong systems. --Marty Goldberg 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary at all. This article is clearly about the specific game, and putting it in the unconventional all-caps, plus defining it in the first sentence, is sufficient to establish that. --Delirium 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RV back, still an active trademarked property. Ianmacm and myself had already come to an agreement some time ago for the single TM (instead of all the way through as I had it), and he rewrote the first paragraph accordingly. See both of our talk pages. --Marty Goldberg 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RV back; whether it's actively trademarked or not is irrelevant, as our standard practice is not to use the symbol. See e.g. Velcro, Apple Computer, Metamucil, Kleenex, and nearly every other article on a trademarked name. Or even if you want to limit the discussion to just games, take a look at Quake, The Sims, and hundreds of other "active trademarked properties". Our standard practice is to mention in running text that it's a trademark, not to use the press-release-style symbols. Unless you plan to argue for a wholesale revision of our policies, and add TM or (R) symbols to all those articles (and hundreds more) as well, I don't see why this article should be treated anomalously. --Delirium 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And RV back again. The logic of your comparison is irrelevant, as clearly stated by our standard practices (I am also part of these "our" you mention here, and certainly not a newbie) in the Wikipedia Manual of style:"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Whether or not other contributors have chosen to ignore the guide line is completely irrelevant as well. Unless you plan to argue for a complete revision of the Manual of Style, then go ahead. Using the argument that its explained in the text is an assumption that the average reader sees the same logic and relationship you do between a generic genre name and the actual (currently exercised trademaked) originally named game, or percieves said textual explination in the same clarity and context. If you continue to revert as you have, we can take this up a notch to the admins. --Marty Goldberg 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well, first it was a series of TM symbols, which was compromised down to 1. Then its being pushed (somewhat agressively by another) to none with the claim of "well I haven't seen some other contributors do it" in some unwritten guideline when the manual of style clearly defines this as an exemption. In fact, articles such as Kleenex and Velcro should actually have at least one TM to differentiate per the guideline. I'm not the one turning this in to WW3, I'm used to discussing things and coming to an agreement. And I saw no attempt to do that on his part, simply an egotistical "I don't agree, I'm changing it, and to bad what anyone else hashed out or disagrees about" without trying to discuss a thing and posting a rehash of said reasoning here in lieu of an actual discussion. Especially when there was obviously a precedent discussion. As someone who works in the video game industry, there's a reason why TM's are attached to corporate names and properties in articles, reviews, press releases and other areas, especially when a product becomes popular enough to enter the general vernacular. And that's the only context I've presented regarding TM, when if I really cared about arguing on principle and legal precedent it could be pushed to argue on all properties. --Marty Goldberg 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone whose spouse used to work for Intel trademark enforcement, one TM symbol is a very big deal. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no legal precedent at all to require the use of the trademark symbol in any context, unless you're licensing the trademark from the owner and thereby agreeing to additional terms (which we aren't). Please kindly refrain from implying legal threats without any relevant knowledge of trademark law. Do you see any TM symbols in, say, this journal article, to pick one among thousands? Of course not; the editors would never allow that sort of ad-copy style. As long as we accurately explain that it's a trademark, there is no reason to use the convention of saying so that's popular in press releases and advertisements, rather than the more established scholarly convention of saying the same, which is the English words "is a trademark". --Delirium 11:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Sunnyvale bar

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

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