Talk:History of video games/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mystery of Semag Inc

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

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

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

Comment

Moved from text of article:

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

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

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

The sections on the 1950s, 60s, and 70s are mostly not about game consoles, except for mentioning Ralph Baer's work. Computer Space, Pong, Asteroids, EDSAC Tic Tac Toe, Spacewar, etc. were not game consoles. --Arteitle 05:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The mess is a result of combining the seperate computer/console histories into one. They were originally very coherent by themselves, but together they have to start referencing and complementing each other, which introduces a lot of new problems. 169.233.5.71 07:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where History of computer games ?

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

---

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

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

proposal to move

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

I agree. -Sean Curtin 05:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Just reiterating to make sure I understood: Move this to history of computer and video games and make history of computer games redirect there? If that's the case, then I agree. --Mrwojo 05:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree on the move, but keep in mind that as well as a single computer and video games article, there are separate ones for console games personal computer games, and arcade games. --24.114.252.183 22:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo era

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

Getting rid of the lists

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

Re-sequencing of 1970's section

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

There appears to be a formatting error/bit missing in the coin-op section, on the first paragraph? --Coffeelover 16:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rats, you're right! I'll backtrack it and find where I messed up and fix it. Thanks for the catch. Coll7 19:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to 24.114.252.183 for cleaning this up before I had a chance to do it. Coll7 07:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-sequencing of early consoles sections

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

Proposal to Add Names to Console Eras

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

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

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

Here's a draft sequence to start the discussion:

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

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

You should make your proposal at WP:CVG. I disagree with changing the names to the ones you proposed. They don't reflect all the systems, not even close. What we have now is what was settled on after long in-depth debate. I think Pong should be removed as part of the history timeline. I really don't think it fits. The "first home console wars", might be a good addition though, although I don't really care for the name. Perhaps something like "Atari era" (which I've seen used) or perhaps something else that better reflects the time. K1Bond007 04:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of this article still needs a lot of cleanup before shifting large portions to child articles.

Those titles are entirely too POV-laden. They reek of fanboyish chest-thumping and ignore consoles popular ouside the North American market. The choice of Pong as the label for the entire first generation is as dubious as calling the 8-bit era the Nintendo era(which was thankfully corrected in that article). This is also the first time I've seen the consoles of the pre-crash period as being in a "war". That didn't really come into play until the Nintendo/Sega rivalry. Console era naming and the whole "next gen" issue (especially what the hell to call the generation after the "next gen") has been discussed ad nauseum and resulted in the current labels of the two most recent generations.

The history of handhelds is already present in the main handheld article, but cannot be easily removed from here as it is essentially another parallel path alongside PC and console games. --24.114.252.183 04:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

1970's University Mainframe Section

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

This isn't going to work.

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

NES Seal of Approval and the 8bit age

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

207.216.19.41

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

I just gave him a week of "vacation." K1Bond007 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, he's been doing that continuously for both the Saturn and Dreamcast, apparently swearing up and down that both came out in Western countries on the year of their Japanese release, which neither did... That'd be, what, his fifth "vacation" for the same edits now? --Shadow Hog 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like that. I've blocked him twice. What do you want me to do. Block him more? If the IP is static, I guess I can. K1Bond007 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Years added to generations names

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

I absolutely disagree with making an entire generation seem as though it started in one year and ended in another. For instance, this page now claims that the sixth generation was over in 2004. This is flat out wrong. The Nintendo GameCube and PlayStation 2 are current systems and even Xbox was the head of the MS household until 2005 (although by some is still a current system). Theres too much gray area to define a generation by year. K1Bond007 04:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jacoplane 04:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the beginnings and ends are not neat -- the PS1 era ended for high-end games in about 2001 but new PS1 games still ship. What I keep trying to explore is how to solve the following problem: if I walked up to random people in the hallways at GDC and asked them "What are 6th generation consoles and about when were they ascendent?" almost all respondents would not know what wasa 6th gen console. Our chosen terminology is not widely used, so even a knowledgable gamer won't know what era we're referring to until they read the text -- headers are supposed to be the opposite of that. Can I get you guys to go for adding "(Late 80's to early '90's)" or some other generic descriptors to give people some clue? Overlapping years to reflect the long trailing market after a machine has peaked? Thanks. Coll7 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the generation numbers here are essentailly arbietrary and are not commonly agreed upon or in any sort of wide use. Furthermore, they are also inaccurate. (The Atari 2600 and 5200 are conflated into the same generation according to these articles, which makes about as much sense as putting the NES and SNES together would.) Date ranges or descriptive terms would be a better way of labeling these sections, IMO. 64.171.162.76 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. If you listen to Sony talk (and watch store shelves), fifth gen (as written in this article) ended two years ago when production of the PS one stopped; sixth gen would stretch into the next decade. Would it be reasonable instead to list major consoles in each generation in their headers? (And as a note – I expect this remark will be ignored, as the original argument was over a year ago.) NeoDude0 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be a defining moment in the generation of the console. Such as, "Nintendo ends a crisis" (side note that Nintendo's practices should be noted as well...), or "Sony popularizes optical discs". Something to that effect, maybe? Franky1029 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No DOS/Windows commentary

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

Obvious Question

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

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

Unbiased

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

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

Casio Loopy

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

American bias

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

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

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

Europe is very important.

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

Maybe in Europe, but hardly Internationally, most of the top computer games in the U.S. came from U.S. publishers. Most U.S. gamers didn't get a feel for European games until the 90's console market expanded and many games were ported. Amiga gamers did get a taste earlier, but this is a small market compared to the other platforms of that time period. Don't get me wrong though, I think all regions should be represented fairly. BcRIPster 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with BcRIPster here. In the 1980s, the British computer game market was both interesting and diverse with some truly innovative concepts, but the industry failed to build any momentum and dominate game making internationally. Virgin, Eidos, Bullfrog, Rare, and a few other companies developed an international presence in the early 1990s and made some important contributions that must be documented in this article, but such interesting games as Skool Daze, Carrier Command, Knights of Lore, and Head Over Heels were unknown outside of Europe and did not propel international video game design forward. Britain was not at the center of the computer game industry in the 1980s because even though there was a large industry at the time, it failed to reach markets outside of Europe. I do not know if American games such as Ultima, King's Quest, or Pirates! were reaching Britain during this time. If they were, then the United States would have to be considered the center of the industry; if not, then there were two distinct centers at the time, but the American companies have surely won out in the long run. So I say once again, we should definately have an article that focuses exclusively on Britain and we definately need a few more British games in this article, but an American/Japanese bias is inevitable and proper based on the relative importance of the three centers of game design. Indrian 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between U.S.-heavy content (appropriate for the reasons argued above) and U.S.-centric phrasing (i.e. assuming everything refers to the U.S. unless otherwise stated—never appropriate on WP, except on inherently U.S. topics, such as United States House of Representatives). For example, take the graph showing inflation-adjusted launch prices of home consoles (excellent illustration, btw):

• What's OK: that it only shows U.S. console launches. International ones would be hard to compare accurately in terms of purchasing power, and the U.S. is a big enough market to serve as illustration.
• What's not OK: that its caption is "Launch prices of selected home consoles adjusted for inflation". It should be called "...U.S. launch prices of selected home consoles, adjusted for inflation." —Blotwell 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• No argument there. Feel free to change stuff like that. Indrian (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Atari's fall

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

The Atari in the market now is not Atari. It is Infogrames who bought the name alone and rebranded themselves in an effort to improve marketshare. If any company could be the "successor" to Atari in spirit, it would probably have to be Williams who bought the licenses to a number of Atari franchises in the arcade market. BcRIPster 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. In 1984, Warner Communications sold Atari to Commodore founder Jack Tramiel. Warner retained the arcade division of the company only and renamed it Atari Games so as to distinguish it from plain old Atari. Atari Games was sold to Namco the next year, but Namco sold it to a group of Atari Games employees in 1986 to make it independent again. Atari Games also released NES games, mostly unauthorized, as Tengen. Atari abandoned the video game business in favor of computers, putting out the Atari ST, before returning to video games with the Atari 7800, the Lynx, and the Jaguar. The company merged with JTS in 1996, and the Atari name was discontiuned. JTS sold the rights to the Atari properties to Hasbro Interactive in 1998, which sold the properties to Infogrames in 2000, which renamed its American operation Atari in 2003. Meanwhile, Atari Games was purchased by Time Warner in 1993 and renamed Time Warner Interactive (TWI) . TWI was sold to WMS Industries (essentially Williams renamed) in 1996, where it was placed under the Midway division (Williams had purchased Bally/Midway in 1988), which was renamed Midway Games. Midway Games became an independent company in 1998. Under Midway Games before and after it became independent, the Atari Games label was still used by the company. However, negotiations with Hasbro Interactive led the name to be changed to Midway Games West in 2000. This division was closed in 2003, bringing an end to Atari Games. To make a long story short, the renamed Atari (formerly Infogrames) controls the rights to the VCS, 7800, Lynx, Jaguar, etc. portion of the old Atari while Midway Games owns the rights to arcade properties such as Gauntlet and Paperboy and the Tengen console games. Indrian 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, good call. I double checked myself and it was homerights in addition to the title, but their focus at the time (in the materials I was receiving) was about the branding and that's why it stood out in my mind that way. I don't usually slip up like that. Thanks, and sorry if I added any confusion. None the less, the main point is still valid. There is no "Atari" per-say, anymore. BcRIPster 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Indrian 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some corrections – 1) Atari did not abandon the video game business under Tramiel. They still continued to sell and promote the previous products and back catalog, even having a 2600 and 5200 on display at their June '85 CES booth. The backstock of the 2600, 5200, and the XL series computers is what kept them afloat for the year and a half after the takeover until they started shipping the ST's. 2) The Atari name was not discontinued under JTS, Atari became a small office under JTS and provided minimal support for the Jaguar – the name was still in use and the website was still being updated and run, there was also the Atari Interactive pc games. 3) Atari Interactive Inc. (which works closely with Atari Inc., formerly Infogrames USA), owns the trademarks and copyrights to the pre-'84 split arcade games. Midway just owns the hardware and game roms to those pre-'84 games. 4) To say the Atari Inc. around now is not "Atari" is simply unfactual, and completely ignores the fact that Tramiel's Atari Corp. was the exact same situation. Atari Corp. was simply Tramel Technology Ltd. (TTL), who bought the Atari name and properties (of the Consumer Division) and renamed itself Atari Corp. In fact, the employees that worked for Warner's Atari Inc. had to resign on at Atari Corp. if they wanted to be employed under Tramiel (or Tramiel even wanted them). It was an outside company that bought the name and properties and renamed itself "Atari". Same thing Hasbro did when it created Atari Interactive Inc. and same thing Infogrames did with Infogrames USA when it spun it off as a seperate company. --Marty Goldberg 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall Organization

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

Esptoronto 16:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 3

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

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

Question about the generation divisions

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

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

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

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

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

mainframe section

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

what?

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

Ummm, why so many ?s?

86.152.159.71 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of stamp image in this article

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

This image is of a United States postage stamp produced in 1978 or later. The copyright for it is owned by the United States Postal Service. It is believed that the use of postage stamps

• to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

[...] qualifies as fair use

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

Timeline: PS3 vs. Wii biased

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

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

Andreaskem 06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

86.152.159.71 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Nogard 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Those Generations

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

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

Although one should note that these generations are fairly well defined by the video game press and commentators.--Grimboy 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When a new generation begins is different for every company that makes the consoles. For example when Sony made their first console, The Play Station, they made it 5th generation because (obviously) 5th was the newest generation at the time. And with all companies when they make another console that means it's one generation ahead. Bottom line; Each generation progresses one step for each new console they make. (Unless it is an uptaded look of the same system just like Sony made a smaller Ps2 a few years after the first one came out) All they'll have to tell you is the generation of their first console and one could figure it all by themself. The Great Davoo 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Each generation progresses one step for each new console they make" – I agree with that statement, but obviously whoever wrote the article doesn't as they have for some reason skipped many consoles – see my suggestion at the end of this page for my reason. ZhuLien 5:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

psp the generation of handheld

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

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

Derrogatory Links

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

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

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

'Draughts' doesn't cross the Atlantic

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

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

Nitpicking on 4th and 6th generation entries

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

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

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

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

Article Rename and possible split

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

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

Buried in a hole in new mexico?

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

It's a very persisant urban myth. See the ET article for the full story. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) – X201 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the 2600 ET article does not state its not true, it simply states that the story has taken on urban legend proportions to the point that some people believe its not true. As for proof, its listed right there including the Alamogordo Daily News (with accompanying picture of said dump) and New York Times references. New Mexico was not the only location, Atari had several spots across the country where they'd dump (and crush) unsold stock. It was even done with the foundation of one of their warehouses, where stock was dumped and crushed (steamrolled) and the warehouse floor foundation laid over it. --Marty Goldberg 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, referring to a landfill as "a hole" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. 64.171.162.77 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove Repeated References to Grand Theft Auto

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

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

Proprosed Generations

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

Generation 1:

(1972) Magnavox Odyssey

Generation 2:

(1977) Atari 2600

Generation 3:

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

Generation 4:

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

Generation 5:

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

Generation 6:

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

Generation 7:

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

Generation 8:

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

Generation 9:

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

Generation 10:

(2001) Microsoft Xbox + Nintendo GameCube

Generation 11:

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

ZhuLien 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice, clear breakdown. But, according to the Sega SG-1000 article, the Mark I and Mark II had basically identical specs. And the Mattel Aquarius was a home computer with Gen2-level graphics. So I would eliminate your Generation 4.

Also, the Playstation 2 and the Xbox/GameCube shared shelf space for most of their lives, so I would not put these in seperate generations. 64.171.162.77 05:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The May 5, 2007 (Vital Facts Issue) Cassandra Report from The Intelligence Group discusses "Gaming 3.0" on page 180. They claim the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 are "third generation consoles." What they appear to infer is that this is the third mainstream generation (since mainstream culture is their focus). Though they do not specifically explain what the three generations are, maybe this niche/mainstream differentiation is a good organizational method for this article. Most importantly, however, this scheme could be verifiable and notable, while still acknowledging the full history. —Parhamr 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article is a mess

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

Game name searched

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

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

Will start a what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Rosenthal page link?

Is it correct?

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

Archive 1

Too much focus on consoles?

It'd seem the article completely ignores computer games on and around the second half. This is supposed to be history of video games, not history of console video games. --Shadow86 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats true, but if you read the entire article, you can see that he/she is geared more towards consoles, not because they are better, but becasue there is more to cover at the moment on console games. PCs do have a lot of selections and come out with a good number of games, but other thatn landmark titles such as World of Warcraft, Crysis, WCIII and other games such as Half Life, there really isnt anything that the console playing gamer will recognize immeditely upon reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.146.56 (talk • contribs)

Well, there's things like Games For Windows, and PC gaming hardware. Progress on nVidia's GeForce and ATI's Radeon graphics card ranges could go in. -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And the flop that is DirectX 10. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I can't agree more. For example, just try looking for Doom. It's surely one of the largest landmarks in PC-gaming history, not least because of its move beyond the painter's algorithm. There is also no mention of Half-Life as anything but the technological basis of Counterstrike. Admittedly, other genres (notably RTS's) are better covered. I agree that recent PC-gaming technology is ignored. There is, for example, no mention of the words "pixel shader".

I too wouldn't be so surprised if this were the article on History of console games, but I was redirected here from History of computer games. I feel there might be merit in separating the two, since their histories have been separate and, in my (perhaps limited) experience, their fan bases are quite separate. Just a suggestion though... Warrickball (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair to say that computer game and console game history are not intricately related. In the United States post-crash, it is true that for over a decade the paths of action-oriented console games and strategy/simulation-oriented computer games diverged as an older hobbyist crowd embraced computers and a yougner crowd embraced NES, SNES, and Genesis, but this ignores the world-wide context. In Europe, computer game players trended younger than their U.S. counterparts, and if you look at the popular games of the 1980s on the Spectrum you will find arcade conversions, shooters, and arcade adventures more like the console games found elsewhere. In Japan, it is impossible to ignore the correlation between computer and console games because Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy would not have existed without computer RPGs like Black Onyx, Ultima, and Wizardry. Even in the United States the boundries get murky when you consider EA, a successful computer game company that grew huge in consoles, or Activision, a console company that saved itself in the face of the crash by moving to computers and later came back to consoles.

This argument really fails, however, when you look at the last decade of video game history. The FPS has gradually moved from the PC to the console with games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and Halo, and I see no way one could discuss the history of those games without first talking about DOOM, Quake, and Half-Life. Heck, even contemporary FPS games that appear in both forums like BioShock do much better on consoles than on PCs, where traditional gaming has been on the wane in the United States as MMORPGs and other products garner more attention. The computer RPG has basically shifted to the console market as well with companies like BioWare and Bethesda that began with innovative RPG products on the PC (Baldur's Gate, Morrowind) debuting and optimizing their current RPG products on Xbox or 360 (Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Oblivion). In short, the history of computer games and other video game media are closely linked and should be discussed as a single unit. I agree totally that the current attention paid to computer gaming in this article is insufficient, but hey, no one is stopping any of you from doing some editing to change that fact. I see no sense in going to talk to complain about something you can just fix yourself. Indrian (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please check of the sales record for video games? Apparently these days, at least from the sales point of view, the console market seems bigger so if the end of the article is shifter towards those that is a good thing. In the other hand the pictures included suggests that the article is a bit xbox influenced (the only console pictured is an xbox, the only video game pictured is an xbox game (am I correct?)) which seems to me a bit subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holczhammer (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

8th generation and the Pandora console?

Which generation does the upcoming Pandora console belong to? Out of laziness you could say that the 7th generation isn't over at all, but when you look at it, 7th generation handhelds (GP2X, DS and PSP) all came out in 2004, as the Pandora is bound to come out in summer 2008, 4 years later, when a generation is easily considered to be roughly 5 years (and the Xbox 360 came out exactly 4 years and 1 week after the Xbox), and also considered its vast technical superiority (a developer has reported running the console stably at 900 MHz, which is a few times more than the PSP could, also it has a 800x480 screen which is 3 times the PSP's 480x272 screen resolution), sounds like you just can't put it in the same category as the DS, GP2X or PSP. Besides a generation doesn't have to end for another one to begin.

So, is the Pandora the first 8th generation console to (soon) be, and shall 2008 be marked as the beginning of this generation? --89.127.175.78 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire concept of catagorizing hardware into arbitrary generations is meaningless in the first place..Asher196 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes another "open source" console that has yet to come out (anybody remember the Phantom?) doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia has clear policies on advertising, and frankly I'm surprised the entire Pandora article hasn't been put up for deletion yet. Date of release has only a small part to do with a "generation", that's usually decided by a combination of technology, chief competitor, and date. Likewise, with concrete references by gaming publications and the industry. I.E., the Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube and PS2 are all the same generation because of those three standards. PS3, Wii, Xbox360 are the next. A yet to be released hand held with no actual market presence has nothing to offer except a brief mention in the current generation. You have to wait until it actually hits the market and establishes a presence in the market to get reviews calling it a "next gen" product. Everybody calls their own product "next generation" when they're first coming out, that's part of marketing. If it truly represents a beginning of a next generation, it'll be defined as such by reliable third party sources after it hits the market. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable --89.127.175.78 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW – I've called for a semi-protect on main article page because of the edit warring from the other anonymous ip's. That basically temporarily blocks all anonymous ip's from editing the page for a specific length of time. If you want to contribute to the page during that time, you have to register for an account here. And I'd strongly recommend it regardless of that, if you plan on sticking around and contributing to other articles as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

the first newsletter dedicated to video games?

The article contains the following:

"In 1988, Nintendo published their first issue of Nintendo Power magazine, becoming what could be considered the first newsletter dedicated to video games, inspiring such magazines as Game Informer and PlayStation Magazine."

During the early 80s, there were many video game magazines that covered the industry, including Video Games, Joystik, Video Gaming Illustrated, Electronic Fun, Electronic Games, etc. Atari, Activision, Imagic, Coleco and others had their own newsletters as well.

The trade magazines of the coin-op industry, Replay and Playmeter, date back to the mid-70s.

Could someone please tell me if I'm reading that sentence incorrectly? If not, it should probably be removed.

Cheers.

129.82.250.202 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it the same way that you read it and have removed the odd claims made for it. - X201 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Seventh generation

Am I the Only one who thinks it's wierd that the seventh generation starts with the N-Gage? Doesn't that fit better under sixth generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.89.41.157 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

129.82.250.158 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MGS screen psx.jpg

The image File:MGS screen psx.jpg 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. --10:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seventh Generation cites

There are alot of claims made in that section, like PC gaming declining and PS3 declining etc.. While this might be true in general (most likely only for the US) there are citations for those and other claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.82.192 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think finding GOOD references to factual information on that kind of topic is going to be very hard to find. Frankly with the amount of online gaming going on, I don't think PC gaming is declining... same goes for PS3 with their popular titles. I don't think you can relate that kind of information to video game sales alone, because the claim is that the gaming itself is declining..... keep in mind that a lot of the PC gaming industry sale isn't recorded because of high levels of piracy, and I'm sure the same can be said for other consoles as well at a lesser impact. --Poet  Talk  18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I just added a few citation needed tags to push the problem areas. There are some seriously big claims made and we desperately needed sources.--LostOverThere (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of console video game generations

In this article, which purports to summarize all of the history of video games, there were links to six of the seven console generations, with no link to the article about the First Generation. Instead, the section "The golden age of video arcade games" appears to be in its place. The link to the "golden age" article is appropriate but the "First Generation" also needs to be included in this article in some way. For instance, one must navigate to the article on the "second generation" of console games in order to see that a first generation article exists. It seemed prudent to add a link to this page so that all seven generations are listed here in a consistent format. I placed the link under "The Dawn of Console Gaming" but if anyone has a better idea of how to list the First Generation in this article so that the First Generation is listed in a manner consistent with the other six generations, please go ahead. MJB2015 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be restructured

The structure of the article is console-centric – particularly from the seventies onwards. For example, PC gaming's history does not follow the generational waves that consoles do and this article's structure is inappropriate and inadequate when describing video games in the PC context. It would be interesting to have an analysis of how the different markets are at once both self-contained and cross-fertilising. If the PC market is currently on the decline (perhaps temporarily), it might be interesting to understand the different factors at play.

Handhelds hardly get a look in – I would have thought that single-game handhelds from the eighties (such as Nintendo's Donkey Kong) are worthy of a mention as a precursor to the Nintendo DS (and for their sales success).

This is also a Western-oriented article. The huge, innovative and thriving Asian markets are largely ignored – we only read about those things that successfully cross-over to America & Europe.

There is no discussion of the impact of video games on culture and society, and vice versa:

- the convergence with home entertainment (home theaters, media centers, HD, wide screen, surround sound)
- changing gamer demographics and the opening-up of new markets
- persistent virtual worlds, such as Second Life and the blurring of the definition of "game"
- video gaming addictions and other health concerns and how this has affected games develpoment
- ratings controversies, censorship and the claim (and counter claims) that video games cause antisocial outcomes
- the growing character levelling industry (paying people "offshore" to level your character)
- the growing profession of video gamers and video game NPC actors as well as tournaments and conferences
- the impact video games have had on other media such as film (film spin-offs and game cross-overs)
- video gaming's growing economic impact (the claim that gaming is a larger industry than the film industry)
- communities that form around video games (guilds, modding communities, fan sites, collectors)
- the topic of abandonware and copyrights for assets that have no viable owner
- software piracy and digital rights management and the impact this has had on game development
- virtual in-game assets having real-world value and being traded (on eBay, for example)
- the subject of obsolescence, loss of gaming artefacts (e.g. arcade PROMs), museums and emulators
- the use of games in marketing, recruitment and propaganda

Finally, because the last half of this article is mainly a history of console gaming, it doesn't discuss the development of genres nor the changing fashion of subject material.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morsera (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of what you suggest is material that deserves to be covered some where, but I think it is largely beyond the scope of the main article, which has to summarize major events. Most of the topics above would need there own daughter articles, I think, rather than having information added here.

As for your PC vs. console argument, you might be suprised how well historic breaks in the PC market coincide with console generations.

The first generation (1972–1976) period marked the rise of gaming on mainframe computers, from Star Trek in 1972 through Adventure and Dungeon. The second generation (1976–1984) marks the period that home computers first appeared in the form of the TRS-80, PET, Vic-20, TI-99, and, later, the Spectrum and C64. The most popular computer games in this period tended to be arcade clones, while PC-specific genres such as RPGs, wargames, and adventure games, both interactive fiction and graphical, began to emerge.

In 1984–85, the home computer market went bust just as the concole market had in 1983–84. The third generation period (1985–1989) marked the full flowering of the point-and-click adventure, the CRPG, and military simulation games in the United States and the heyday of more action-oriented fare in the United Kingdom. The period was largely dominated by the C64, Apple II, and Spectrum, but a shift to 16-bit computers began with the release of the ST and the Amiga and culminated in the rise of the VGA standard on PCs, leaving that computer poised to take over the market.

The fourth generation period (1989–1994) marked the coming of age of computer gaming through the VGA standard, the Sound Blaster, and the promise of multimedia. Populous, Sim City, and Civilization illustrated how the GUI interface could result in complex strategy games that were simple enough to enjoy more widespread appeal, 7th Guest and Myst brought mainstream recognition to ponit-and-click adventure gaming, and Doom ushered in an era of hardcore action-gaming that allowed PC gaming to flirt with the popularity of console gaming for a short time. In Europe, the Spectrum petered out as a game platform as the Amiga took over the market with hits like Lemmings and Sensible Soccer.

The fifth generation (1995–2000) marked a transitional period in PC software. The interactive movie fad came and went, taking the point-and-click adventure down with it, while the military simulation games that were big hits in the late 1980s now had small appeal compared to the new emerging mass market brough on through 3D technology, first-person perspective, real-time gameplay, and the Internet. Command & Conquer and Warcraft II ushered in the RTS genre (not the first games, but the first big hits), Quake demonstrated the power of 3D and the allure of the internet, Starcraft and Half-Life marked high points for narrative in gameplay as well as massive sales of many millions, and Ultima Online and Everquest hinted at a new frontier.

The sixth generation period (2000–2005) saw the rise of the casual phenomenon. Pop Cap games was founded and unleashed Bejewled and Zuma, while Maxis unleashed the Sims and brought unheard of sales to the platform. Meanwhile, the single player experience began to melt away as Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, and Counterstrike turned the first-person shooter from a solitary fight for survival into a dynamic team game with more varied objectives.

The seventh generation (2005-present) is not over, so its themes cannot entirely be known, but so far it appears the story is dying retail, the rise of digital distribution through services such as Steam, fierce debate over piracy through P2P services, and the juggernaut that is World of Warcraft.

Sure, maybe the section names should be more generic so as not to appear console-centric, but it is hard to argue that console generations do not create natural breaking points in computer game history as well. Indrian (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that a comprehensive history would discuss all relevent events and not merely the major publishing or hardware releases events. I agree that it is not possible to put all this material into the one article and so a restructure would be required, along with daughter pages, in which case this article would become more of a master index/summary.

Retrofitting the history of other platforms into the structure that suits the history of consoles is really quite an arbitrary thing to do – just because we can doesn't mean we should. We could come-up with countless other ways of structuring the timeline. For example we could base the structure on major technical breakthroughs or on the development of the gaming market (the opening-up of new markets and quantum leaps in video game consumer populations).

As indicated in the article header, we need more citations in this article to substantiate the claims made in the article. We also need an agreement on what constitutes an event worthy of inclusion in this history (Pop Cap, while a producer/publisher of excellent products with an innovative business model, arguably hasn't had the impact that, say, Space Invaders had).

Morsera (talk)

Any breaking of material into sections is arbitrary by definition. Breaking along the lines of console generations is useful because it is possible to structure computer game and arcade game history within a similar framework and therefore discuss all three facets in a coherent manner without much jumping back and forth in time while also keeping each chunk relatively small so the audience is not overwhelemed with information. Also, I think you should reconsider the importance of Pop Cap, etc. Space Invaders began a process of interesting the mass market in arcade games just as Pop Cap was one of the opening salvos in the current mass market video game appeal. I imagine more people have played Bejewled than have played Space Invaders, and Pop Cap needs to be mentioned (not covered in depth) for its role in the market shift that has slowly brought a larger audience into gaming.

As for your other categories above, most of them are not historical in nature but rather anthropological. Obsolescence really has no bearing on video game history itself, only on society's ability to play old games. Video game addiction and whether or not it exists is a societal issue that would need a whole daughter article to explore, and since the research is still in its infancy, has not really had a historical impact yet. The growing character levelling industry and the selling of virtual items are basically unique concerns of MMORPGs and similar online prodcuts and are better covered there than here, where they make barely a ripple in larger video game history. Abandonware and copyright is a legal matter that has little to do with the evolution of the industry. I agree that demographic shifts, convergence with other media, piracy, persistent worlds, and the ongoing violence controversy have enough impact to be covered in a general history article, but the rest is either too niche or not historical enough in nature. Indrian (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, let's break the history up into the most significant milestones (which undoubtedly includes the release of console generations), but let's not pretend that the "generation" labelling applies to anything other than consoles.

I was using a comparison of Pop Cap and Space Invaders for illustrative purposes – I wasn't stating a position. Pop Cap may or may not be worthy of inclusion – this isn't the point I was making, which was: (1) we need to agree some way of benchmarking significant events, and (2) that we need to back-up any claim with cited evidence. We couldn't include Pop Cap on the basis of your imagination, for example ;-). With regards to point (1) – what is the criteria for inclusion? Again, continuing the illustration, 'Bejeweled' may indeed have been played by more people (evidence?) – but has it had the same impact as 'Space Invaders'? How do you measure this? Which one opened-up the biggest market? Which one racked-up the most playing hours? Which one generated the most revenue (in present terms)? Which was the more revolutionary? Influential? I am not proposing any answers – my point is for an item to be included it must meet certain criteria, and have provided a significant, sustained and substantiated impact with the same order of magnitude as the other items in the history.

As far as the points I have raised, if they have significantly impacted the history (or evolution) of video games then they have a place here (whether or not they are anthropological). Depending on the criteria, they may or may not warrant inclusion and there are surely be others that should be included. The list was just a brain dump to generate discussion. So I am not precious about the list, but I am suggesting that the current treatment is superficial, unsubstantiated, unbalanced and incomplete particularly in the later half.

Morsera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree entirely with your last sentence, though I have no plans to try and add the missing information to this article myself. I also agree that generations should not be used as section headers, I merely believe that the generational timeframes dovetail very well with developments in all sectors of video game entertainment and therefore provide a good framework for breaking up video game history. I don't believe the article needs to be greatly restructured as your subject header implies, which is why I posted a response, but I certainly believe it needs to be refocused and greatly expanded to do the topic justice. Whoever wants to try that, I wish them luck. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin...

"Beginning with PCs, a new trend in casual gaming, games with limited complexity that were designed for shortened or impromptu play sessions..."

I'm not so sure that the Sims qualifies as a casual game. It isn't the kind of game you play for 10 minutes, it isn't shareware and it isn't from a small internet based game publisher. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fanboy in the least, I just don't think it can accurately be labeled a casual game. Also some casual games [Like Airstrike 3-D and Geneforge] often appeal to a different crowd than the one's who play Bejeweled and Diner's Dash.

There is no mention of single player flash and shockwave gaming which has been on the rise for the later half of this decade. There is too little mention of browser based mmo's [which seem to have taken a significant share of the market in the latter half of this decade].

Also, the sections of this article are incongruously placed. Someone needs to chose whether to arrange the sections by chronology, subject or whatever and stick to it. Also, there is hardly any mention of Macintosh or Windows in the late 90's which I clearly remember to be equally notable portions of my gaming experience [and possibly more predominant than consoles at that time].

Someone should really take the time to fix this article. It's a real mess in probably more areas than are mentioned on the entire discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.194.84 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Generations?

Am I the only one who thinks classifying the various gaming generations is ridiculous? This is not the first time I've heard of different "gaming generations" before, but I've never seen it classified into different years like it is in this article. As well, I see a lot of the information is pieced together to FIT into a generation, when the article itself should be discussing trends in general rather than different hardware available. Additionally, a lot of the claims in the latest generation are way off and have no statistical or factual information to back them up, and again it seems like information is being pushed into a generation (about hardware, false trends to gaming) just fill the section.

I also see that the 6th generation is from 1998–2008, and the 7th is from 2004-present.... how can 2005–2007 be in the 6th AND 7th generation? This must have been a typo, but again I think it's related to the fact that nobody really understands when a "generation" begins or ends, and the date has been played with too many times. With the 5th generation it's the same. The section says 1994–2002, but the 6th starts in 1998. ARGH!

If anything the generations should be defined by decades as the article itself is. Example: Gen 1, 1970s. Gen 2, 1980s, etc.. However, even if you went and did generations like that, you would be completely ignoring obvious gaming trends (for example the release of the NES so very late in the 80s should not end a generation a few years into its release).

My vote is to completely remove the "generations" and place the information into different sections based on trends. Keep in mind that a lot of the sections can be broken off into different articles. There should be different sections for all of the different types of gaming (arcade, console, PC, handheld, etc) and then further broken into generational trends from there.... not all slapped together into different generations that nobody can decide on. --Poet  Talk  19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had issue with the use of generation, especially as several consoles never seem to fit within the "generation" qualifier.陣内_Jinnai 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Generations can be concurrent. There are still PS2 games being produced and the PS2 is still produced, so that continues the 6th generation. A generation in my view ends when production for the last console is ended and begins when the first console is introduced. 68.63.241.215 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole use of generations on wikipedia seems like some sort of OR to me. Before this site came along, people used to talk about generations, sure, but it wasn't stuff like first generation, 5th generation, etc, it was 8-bit generation, 16-bit generation, 32/64 bit generation and such. Not that that was a good way of doing it, mind you, what with overlap and the fact that processors didn't always increase in bits between gens, but it's how it was. If someone can cite the numbered generations as used on this site before this site used it, I'd be very surprised. 76.226.220.169 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

History seems pro-console/handheld

With the exception of early mentions, the article (and all generation articles related to this) are pro-console/handheld despite the term "video game" being widely used to also include "computer games". The article bases generations solely on consoles and completely ignores the computers. This is becoming more of an issue as lines begin to blur between computer and console as well.陣内_Jinnai 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you would look through the talk page, including a thread just a few posts above, you would see this is brought up every so often, and I am usually the one responding. To restate in brief, all the console information in here belongs but there should be more info on computer games as well. The solution is for editors to add that information. Not an issue that really needs a new talk thread. Indrian (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I posted this because I added the {{bias}} tag so it was clear why I added it.陣内_Jinnai 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, well that makes sense in a way. I confess I did not notice. I do not really think that is what the neutraility tag is for. There is no POV pushed in the article whatsoever; it is just woefully incomplete. We should wait for others to weigh in, of course, but I would be inclined to remove the tag. If you can think of a more suitable tag to get your point across, I would have no problem with you adding that. Indrian (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Changed the tag.陣内_Jinnai 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That is much better, thanks. Indrian (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I still believe it may fail WP:NPOV since the history is broken down based on console generation, which appears to advance the position that video game advancements are based on console generations and that after their introduction they are what's important. This is also the problem with the articles themselves as well. Putting PC game advancements inside them would be breaking NPOV because they aren't generations as has been pointed out.陣内_Jinnai 04:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of pre-internet multiplayer online PC games (e.g. Doom 1+2, Linewars) modem games, BBS Doors, etc... Makes it sound like Quake invented multiplayer. 69.183.40.216 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Genres

Should we be listing various levels of Video game genres in the genre advancement when we list a bunch? I'm thinking unless there is a specific innovation of a particular game, we should use the broadest genre when listing a group of them such as genre innovation of the 1980s.陣内_Jinnai 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Article issue

This article is garbage and needs to be rewritten entirely, it sounds like a adolescent wrote all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.249.25 (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved your message to the bottom of the page, chronologically.

Thank you for you input on the matter. In fact, you are encouraged to contribute to the quality of the article and propose constructive changes where you see fit. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

first console with buyable games

Does anyone know what the first home console was where you could buy the games for it, because consoles like Pong had one game built in. Was it the NES (1983)? --77.99.231.37 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was the Fairchild Channel F (1976) and 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System (1976). There were a whole slew of microprocessor based game systems before the Famicom/NES. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the article under the Second generation consoles section, and in the companion history article on the 2G consoles. My personal favorite of the era was the Odyssey2.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice, i like the Fairchild Channel F the most, and Odyseey2 too! It's like everyone is listing video games of the second generation. Horrah for the second generation--213.83.125.225 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple Gaming

Apple entered the games market in 2008 with the release of the App Store, not in 2007 with the release of the iPhone and iTouch. They weren't capable of playing games before the App Store's release. I took the liberty of changing the description from:

"Apple Inc. entered the realm of mobile gaming hardware with the initial release of the iPhone and iPod Touch in the summer of 2007."

to

"Apple Inc. entered the realm of mobile gaming hardware with the release the App Store for the iPhone and iPod Touch in the summer of 2008." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.171.88 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't count--When Chuck Norris takes a step, all humanity dies and gets reborn again Mr. High School Student 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Project Natal

Hey, I was thinking if I could add in a completely new sub-genre, the 8th generation. Project Natal, if you've seen, is a completely different kind of gaming console. Although it's still TECHNICALLY the Xbox 360, I think Microsoft is proposing the beginning of the next generation. --When Chuck Norris takes a step, all humanity dies and gets reborn again Mr. High School Student 17:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It still counts being part of the seventh generation. We could add an eighth generation section for nintendo 3DS but it might not count either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) .

Well, actually I kind of consider that another genration too, but I don't know, we'd need more opinions to make sure, which nobody has so far.

1977 Video Game Crash a Myth

There is a pervasive story that can probably be traced back to Leonard Herman's Phoenix and Steven Kent's The First Quarter that the video game market collapsed in 1977 because of a glut of dedicated consoles, causing almost everyone to get out of the market. This is simply not true. According to a February 16 1978 article in the Lewiston Daily Sun found at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LIApAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h2UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1201,2730538&dq=coleco&hl=en, Coleco estimates that seven million video games were sold in 1977, which is a very good figure. While this number is just an estimate, even if Coleco was off by as much as ten or twenty percent, this still represents a thriving market. A February 14, 1978 article in the Spokane Daily Chronicle found at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=47EvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4978,3228228&dq=tv-games-cut-back&hl=en announces the discontinuation of RCA's Studio II and the intent of Atari, Fairchild, and Coleco to continue manufacturing at 1977 levels with expectation of strong sales in 1978. If these companies had not done well in 1977, they would not be so sanguine about their prospects for the coming year. Note that RCA tries to claim in the article that the holiday season was a tough one for everybody, but market analysts appear to disagree with this assessment and blame the Studio II's primative technology for RCA's woes instead. Yet another February 14th article in Australian newspaper The Age found at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=47EvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4978,3228228&dq=tv-games-cut-back&hl=en describes Atari and Fairchild video game systems as the "sensation" of the 1977 Christmas season. Heck, a February 1 article in the St. Petersburg Times found at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X_ILAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mlkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4289,455025&dq=electronic-game&hl=en talks about a company planning to launch a new magazine focused on games of all kinds partly due to the growth in the field due to "electronic games played on television screens," while a January 9, 1978 article in Time Magazine at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912091,00.html partially blames a decline in television ratings in 1977 on video games, which it describes as "among the hottest items in stores these days."

Now, there is no doubt that dedicated consoles had their best holiday season in 1976 and that handheld electronics overshadowed them in 1977. There is also no doubt that in 1978 there was some slackening in the market, as Coleco was forced to liquidate inventory at a loss, Atari did have a period of difficulty when it could not move all the VCS systems it manufactured, RCA did leave the business, and dedicated consoles did get dumped and disappear. By the end of the year, however, the Space Invaders craze in the arcade helped boost VCS sales and propel the market to new growth, so the bottom never completely fell out of the business as the term crash implies. If someone wants to dig up some contemporary accounts of a 1977 video game crash, I would be eager to look at them, but I do not see the evidence myself. Indrian (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

PSP2

It was accidentily revealed by an executive producer at WB Games' Netherrealm Studios

Do you think we should add this to the eighth generation section even though it hasn't been confirmed by Sony? Just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless its been confirmed we shouldn't add it. There are a number of reasons it could be delayed or even dropped before its ever officially announced.陣内_Jinnai 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Advance of 3d gaming

Needs to be researched and added to the article. In 1992, Wolfenstein 3D and Ultima Underworld were full pseudo-three dimensional first person games. In 1994 System Shock 1, a fully polygonal game (with sprite-based enemies) was released, and Descent, which is widely known and remembered as "one of the first" 100% polygonal 3d games, was released. Console gaming was introduced to 3d games with Tomb Raider and Mario 64 as the two most iconic titles in 1996. 71.126.104.9 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It says in this article that "3D Monster Maze (1981)" was the first 3D game for home computers. What about "Tunnel Vision" (1978) for the Commodore PET? Heck, even well-known games as Akalabeth and Ultima 1 are older than 1981 82.171.206.218 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)paup.

Citation needed for first issue of Nintendo Power

The first issue of Nintendo Power was the 1988 July-August Premiere Issue, as noted on page 5 of that magazine. The cover featured a "clay" Mario, a subheading that read "Premiere Issue 1988" and a cover price of $3.50 even though a large yellow star contains the words "Free Sample Copy."

Page 5 contains both a US and Japan staff listing, as well as this line:

"Nintendo Power is published by Nintendo of America Inc. in conjunction with Tokuma Shoten Publishing Co., Ltd.

There do not seem to be any other identifying characteristics, such as an ISSN number.

Cheers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.250.158 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 July 2008

Added unsigned flag to above, and added this comment, in order to make Mizabot archive the thread. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting the sixth and seventh generations as prose

I have rewritten (am rewriting?) the sections of the sixth and seventh generation as narrative prose to match the tone of the rest of the article, containing basically the same info as the bullet lists and organizing it into generational trends rather than as a strict chronology.

You may, of course, feel free to undo and/or nuke it in its entirety. ;-) Porphyrous (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a rewrite of the sixth and seventh generations into prose form. I also think that a section is needed outlining the rise of crypto-analytical modification and installation of fully functional OSes onto console hardware. Consoles diverged from general purpose computers for several generations as 3d vector math moved off cpu and into dedicated GPUs in desktops but today every console --Cverlo (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

8th Generation section

Why is there only information about the new Nintendo home console? The 3DS is not even mentioned on the 8th Gen section at all and we know a bunch of info about hardware, software, connectivity, price... And we have now a new handheld from Panasonic, Jungle, that focus on online gaming. I have no problem not having an 8th Generation page because there's no need to have a whole page about it yet, but this section should be updated with more information. (Rapenzie (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

Because it's not 8th generation and we don't sepculate on generations per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. This has already been hashed out on the talk for deltion of the 8th generation page. Speculatory info has no place on Wikipedia, nor is there an actual defined "8th generation" yet per Wikipedia video game project standards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also many in the industry are trying to move away from "generations", esepcially as the technological convergence makes more and more like PCs.陣内_Jinnai 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The NGP has been announced as the next generation portable from sony I think that means the eighth generation is underway. Maybe we should consider adding the section.--Brainybrains 11:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainybrainiac (talk • contribs)

Once again, the same situation was already hashed out at the link given above. An item being touted as "next generation" does not mean "8th generation". Likewise, handhelds do not define a next generation for consoles. They're on their own tract. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Next generation" is a peacock word meant to dress things up. I've seen those reports and they also they it will have the same processing power as a PS3. That doesn't sound "next generation" to me.陣内_Jinnai 21:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To people who assume that the 3DS and the NGP aren't eighth generation, you are wrong. Why aren't they? Tell me, why? It's obvious that we are getting a new wave of consoles, so this is the start. Don't say we can't write about it because it hasn't happened yet; it has. The 3DS is out in Japan. It is going to be released in Europe, America and Australia soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TehLulzMastur (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "next generation" is a peacock term used by marketing firms to drum up support.陣内_Jinnai 17:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your point is? Yes, Next Generation is a peacock term. But that does not change the fact that going from the DS and PSP to the 3DS and NGP is just like going from the GBA to the DS. There, it was heralded as the new generation, otherwise known as the seventh generation. This is exactly the same. Once the Wii 2/PS4/Xbox 720 are announced, they'll be called eighth generation. Why aren't the 3DS and the NGP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.39.209 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo has officially announced that it's next console will be shown off at E3. We have no excuse to say that we're not in the 8th gen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.18.21 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was said by some guys that the Eighth Generation should be started by an home console (an assumption that I find pointless in the current videogame market driven by portables) and now we have Project Café that is the Nintendo next generation home console. Ok, we should wait for the E3 conference to take place, but this is an obvious sign of the existence of an 8th generation of consoles. --87.8.245.179 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A handheld having the same processing power as a PS3 is certainly what I'd call eighth-generation. Handhelds are usually as powerful as systems two generations behind them and if we're getting a handheld as powerful as the freakin' PS3, I'd say that more than meets the criteria if not for the fact that the NGP and 3DS are clearly positioned as generational successors to the PSP and DS respectively as the DS was to the GBA. Just because we don't have any concrete info on any consoles yet doesn't mean Gen8 isn't already here. Yes, "next gen" is usually a marketing term, but aren't the DS and PSP now considered seventh-generation? What does that make the 3DS and NGP then? The notion that "generations" are disappearing is laughable and sounds like your opinion. It's a universally-accepted meter for video game chronology, as is the fact that these two systems are clearly in the eighth. VinLAURiA (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tags

the discussion is being held at WT:VG. Please go there. This pertains the way the video games are divided into generations, and to some extent specifically how they are determined.陣内_Jinnai 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• We have been over this before. There is a factual issue here that should be addressed, so the dispute tag is certainly valid, but this is not a POV issue. No one is pushing an agenda. Computer game and video game history articles used to be separate, so the headings made more sense then as an organizational scheme (which is a separate issue from whether the generations themselves are OR). When everything was merged in 2005, nobody changed the subject headings to something more inclusive. NPOV implies pushing a viewpoint when this is just a sloppily written article. Indrian (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about computer vs. console. I – and others – are saying its that there is POV issue with regard to the particular generations used here. That's also why there is a dispute tag. The sources don't verify that the generations used are the most common.陣内_Jinnai 03:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue. This is an editorial discussion.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Hackings

Various gaming corporations such as Sony, Nintendo, Electronics Entertainment, etc. have recently been hacked. There are enough sources indicating a pattern in the video game industy. There are some ties with "Lulzsec". 99.243.252.115 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Lead

Just a quick explanation so that no one thinks this was random vandalism. I removed the lead because the first two paragraphs are completely inaccurate. Video game origins did not lie "in early cathode ray tube-based missile defense systems in the late 1940s," as the CRT Amusement Device was an isolated experiment that influenced no later game design and does not meet the technical, legal, or popular definition of a video game. The second sentence ("These programs were later adapted into other simple games during the 1950s.") is therefore entirely untrue. To continue, Computer Space was the first commercially sold video game and was viable I suppose in the sense that it was actually cheap enough to be commercialized, but it was not viable in the sense that the product was a market failure. It certainly did not lay "the foundation for a new entertainment industry in the late 1970s," as that was Pong.

Next, there was no video game crash at all in 1977 and no "major" crash at any point in the 1970s. In 1978, the market for dedicated consoles evaporated and several programmable systems had difficulty establishing themselves, but the market never died. The programmable market was smaller than the dedicated market at its peak in terms of systems sold, but that market steadily increased in value between 1976 and 1979 before taking off in 1980. Contemporary newspaper articles do not speak of a market crash at all, but merely of a market shift away from dedicated consoles to programmable systems and electronic handhelds, which were not video games but were considered a comparable entertainment form at the time. Also, the market did not "revive" in 1978. Space Invaders was launched late that year in the US, and the impact of the game was not really felt until 1979. The home market grew as indicated above. Video games did not become a mainstream entertainment until the launch of Pac Man a couple years later.

The info on the crash is also completely wrong. The arcade market began to crash in 1982 and bottomed out in 1984, after which a recovery began in 1985. The home market crash also began in late 1982, though the major effects were felt in 1983 and into 1984. Also, it was not largely caused by a "flood of poor quality games." While many games released in this period were of poor quality, it was the sheer quantity of inventory, without regards to the quality of these games, that caused the market to fall apart, which is why Activision suffered just as much as the companies creating inferior products. Also, the last sentence stating that the arcade and computer markets were largely unaffected is ridiculous. Arcade industry revenues in the US dropped from a peak of between $7 and $8 billion in 1981 to $4 billion in 1984 and arcade games were never again a mainstream entertainment form in the country. Computer gaming ultimately survived as an entertainment form and did not experience the same sharp declines as the arcade and console industries, of course, but Electronic Arts, Activision, Sierra and other companies suffered in the 1983–1985 period as they dealt with fallout from the crash. Furthermore, the crash resulted in a paradigm shift in popular computer game genres as arcade-style action games were completely eclipsed by adventure games, RPGs, and simulations. Sure the effects of the crash were not to destroy the computer game market, but the market changed drastically, so to say that it was "largely unaffected" is untrue.

The final paragraph was generally accurate, but since that one paragraph standing alone would make little sense as an intro, I axed the whole thing. Anyone who wants to take a stab at a real intro is welcome to do so, but please do not just restore the old one, because the amount of inaccurate information contained therein is more damaging to the article than no lead at all. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Turn-based strategy

How come turn-based strategy is not listed among all the game types (which include real-time strategy). There is a sizable (and possibly Civilization-shaped) hole in that list.Nkt777 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall changes in gameplay, music, and animation styles

I've noticed a gradual merging of video game animation and music with film animation and music. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the sixth/seventh/eighth generations? Also, games now have a more immersive gameplay with broad and complex storylines instead of the simple goals of early games. Where should these be addressed? I haven't seen any of these types of topics being addressed in any articles. It's not addressed in gameplay, nor is it addressed in video game. It's only partially addressed in video game music and machinima. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Eighth Generation Consoles

I'm looking for additional outside opinions into the inclusion or exclusion of Video Game Consoles into the 8th Generation article. I have started a new section here and am requesting outside comment. Talk:History of video game consoles (eighth generation)#"We need hardware comparisons". Thank you. -Kai445 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Professional Gamers

Is it worth mentioning the rise of professional gamers? Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject, but surely things like the pro leagues in South Korea, and the rise of celebrity gamers like Fatal1ty are relevant to this article? Just a thought. There doesn't seem to be much (if anything) about how gaming split from a casual pursuit to a lifestyle in many cases. Either way, it was an interesting read so well done to the folks who worked on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.133 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Generation starts and ends

first of all, for the 8th generation, it says that it will start in 2012 with wii u. But it already started earlier this year in 2011with 3ds! For the seventh generation, it says it started in 2005 with xbox 360. But it started in 2004 with ds. And for the sixth generation, it says that the sixth generation ended in 2011 with playstation 2. But since the playstation 2 is not discontined, and there's no discontinue announced for the playstation 2, it is unsure when it will be discontinued. Why is it like this?!

69.236.166.202 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo Hand-Helds do not count as a "generation", because they hardly EVER have cutting edge processor or graphics technology. The new ones are normally released with a new clever gimmick, but they do NOT represent a true upgrade in technology to a new generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ТнеСупԁісате.сом (talk • contribs) 06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason someone ended the seventh generation in 2010? It's still ongoing. For example, look at the third generation with the NES; it shows and end date of 1995 because that's when the NES stopped production. All three major consoles in the seventh generation are in production still, and are still the primary consoles of this generation. It didn't end in 2010. Fourthgeartapped (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wtf are you talking about? Generations are not measured by power. If that was the case, the Wii would be 6th generation, and that's simply not true. Yes, I suggest we change the start of the 7th to 2004.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think the Wii U and 3DS are in the 8th generation of systems. I think it should start with the Xbone and PS4. The Wii U is really an incremental upgrade to the Wii that puts it on par with say the 360, but with a great controller. And the 3DS is really the DS with 3D added. I think we can all speculate that Nintendo will be releasing a new console in the next 2-3 years, their own take with something on par with the One and PS4. Those devices would be in the 8th gen. I just don't think their current devices are enough of a leap forward to constitute 8th gen. I think history will show this to be the case, even though without the One and PS4 out it seems like the Wii U and 3DS are next gen, when they are not. Your Mapper (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, handhelds do not define console generations, they're simply marked as being released during a specific console era. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Console Software developer values

user:Indrian has stated that Nintendo Konami and Capcom were the top software companies in terms of revenue. Awaiting his source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• You still do not understand how wikipedia works. I am not trying to add that fact to the article, so I do not need to source it. I included that fact in my edit summary to help try to explain to you why your attempt to remove material that IS sourced (namely that console software dominance shifted to Japan after the crash) is in error. This is cited to computer game magazines from the late 1980s that directly state that US developers were not entering the Nintendo market. Now, of course this dominance did not last. In the early 1990s, Electronic Arts entered the market and immediately got huge. In the mid to late 1990s Midway, Activision, and Interplay all entered the market heavily as well. (Activision was briefly in the console market in the late 1980s as well before going bankrupt). By the previous generation, there had been a complete dominance shift in the opposite direction, with Japanese developers becoming largely irrelevant. The article is referring to one specific point in time, the US after the crash, that the market dominance shifted. It is not claiming it stayed that way for ever and ever. If you want to remove sourced content, which this is, you need to give us a reason to discount the source by presenting other sources. Indrian (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And you have done such a great job not helping me figure out how Wikipedia works. If there is no source I figure you would need to source it since that is the base of your whole argument, but you are now telling me you do not need to source it. So as you can see, I have no idea what you are trying to say, and hopefully you explain it instead of doing your usual one vague response and run thank you very much.Jakandsig (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I have actually been very patient with you across multiple talk pages for all the good it has done. The statement you continue removing from the article is sourced. I am not trying to add info, you are trying to remove it. Since it is sourced, the only good reasons to take it out would be 1. the source does not meet wikipedia's reliability standards, 2. the source does not actually back up the statement, or 3. a preponderance of souces shows that this source is actually in error. You are removing the sourced statement without attempting to offer any justification. That is disruptive editing, which you have engaged in across too many articles for it to be simple misunderstanding at this point. Indrian (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, you can revert to the previous state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 02:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

7th gen did not end in 2012

They still sell the 7th generation consoles today. A generation ends when the last console from that generation is discontinued. For Example, the PlayStation 2 discontinued in 2013, thus, ending the 6th generation.

(sorry for bad grammar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.40.144 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Microconsoles

The Roku box might be worth a mention here? Angry Birds, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.21.138 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First 3D home computer

"Maze games: Pac-Man (1980) was the first game to achieve widespread popularity in mainstream culture and the first game character to be popular in his own right. 3D Monster Maze (1981) was the first 3D game for a home computer,"

I think this is wrong. http://www.mobygames.com/game/maze-game predates Monster Maze

--213.119.98.217 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of PC gaming after late 1990's

As well as this, there are no mentions of big PC only game franchises like Total War, or Arma. Actually very little discussion about any video games, and improvements made to them. Nearly all of the information in the modern section of the article discuss console specs and release, something that should be on the console page, not here.

Looking at the article as it is now – and I don't know how it looked when this section was started – the 2000s mostly discuss PC games as either online experiences (With MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft gaining an incredible amount of popularity compared to MUDs in the '80s and '90s.) or as casual experiences (With social gaming on services like Facebook becoming popular), while the section completely ignores the following large-scale changes in gaming:

• Digital distribution, through Steam and similar applications or websites. Services such as Humble Bundle are also part of this movement and PC games are now rarely bought on discs.
• Crowdsourcing such as through Kickstarter, which together with the previous point, allows independent projects to become much more successful (I definitely feel that Cave Story should be named somewhere in the overall history of gaming)
• Esports has risen to incredible popularity during this time period, with games such as League of Legends and StarCraft drawing in millions of spectators and millions of dollars.
• The growth of let's plays, events like Games Done Quick, and other YouTube- and Twitch-inspired communities, which in turn is also creating more publicity for smaller indie projects.

A lot of these of course continue through the 2010s and seem particularly of interest to the history of gaming. I'm not a big fan of all the console specs – it feels a bit like cruft and overly specific – so I am all for replacing some of that with more general changes in the medium. I'm not entirely sure how franchises such as Total War or Arma have changed since the late 90s. Even with franchises I know better, such as Xcom or Diablo, it doesn't seem like very much historical progress has been made. Gameplay sure has changed a lot over the years, but it's hard to write anything meaningful about that without singing out a specific franchise and ignoring the others. I don't think any clear "movement" has been going on there. Perhaps the recent surge in popularity of point-and-click-styled games is more notable, with titles from TellTale, the new King's Quest, Broken Age etc. We could also look at the huge popularity of indie horror games: there is just too much going on in gaming to focus on even a single genre, let alone singular franchises. ~Mable (chat) 10:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of video games. 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/20120324084517/http://life.chinatimes.com/2009Cti/Channel/Life/life-article/0,5047,100304+112009090100272,00.html to http://life.chinatimes.com/2009Cti/Channel/Life/life-article/0,5047,100304+112009090100272,00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with unsourced content

@Indrian: It seems that in your recent edits on this article, you have been completely replacing sourced content with unsourced content. this edit in particular seems problematic. I would revert, but I still don't know how to revert multiple edits simultaneously, and I'd also like to hear why you're doing this in the first place. ~Mable (chat) 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to source. I imagine I will get around to it eventually as well. I'm revamping the article since its a bit of a mess right now. It's an involved process that doesn't just happen in a single sitting. The info's accurate. Indrian (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you at least keep the references you removed somewhere to be re-added later? I'm fine with you improving the article in multiple sittings, but I generally find it more practical to add sources as you're adding information – otherwise, you'll forget where you originally got the information from. Unless this is all original research? ~Mable (chat) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Video gaming in Latin America

I added a small section to this article about a year ago regarding video games in South America, which was deleted at some point (which I couldn't find due to the article's long edit history), so I decided to add it back in again to see it deleted by @Indrian:. I was hoping we could discuss whether the section is due; perhaps get a second opinion on it. I personally think that it is, even just due to the continent's large population. It frustrates me how US-centric this article currently is, so I intended to globalize it some. Thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• So I am not entirely in disagreement with you, but here is how I see things. This is the top level history article covering the entire span of 50+ years of video game history in a manner that has to be readable while covering all the basics. Therefore, most of the actual story is going to have to be left to daughter articles. When discussing the global video game industry, there are really only three regions that actually matter: North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. These three regions represent almost 90% of the entire video game marketplace, and before the rise of mobile gaming I would imagine it was closer to 95% or even 98%. Also, these are the regions where nearly every top developer and publisher of video game product resides, be it on PC, console, or mobile devices (Eastern Europe has a few as well, but the overall market there is still small).

Latin America is the next biggest market after these three, but it only constitutes roughly 4% of the market and boats no publishers or developers with real global influence. By country, Brazil is the biggest market in the region at $1.2 billion, but is only the 12th largest market overall, which is even less impressive than it sounds when you consider the market leader, China, sits at $24 billion and the top 7 countries account for 75% of all revenue. Mexico is the only other country in Latin America with revenues over $1 billion. Brazil's only real claim to fame is that Tectoy managed to bust through what is usually a piracy-riven market to sell -- as of late 2015 -- 5 million Master System consoles and 3 million Genesis consoles. That's fewer consoles in nearly 30 years than the number of NES consoles Nintendo once sold in the United States in a single year.

So in short, yes the article should be more global. I started a rewrite of the piece the other year that introduced some light info on Western Europe and Japan, but I only got through the very early industry, where the U.S. really was predominant. Had I continued (which I still might someday), I would have covered topics such as the rise of the 8-bit home computer market in Western Europe, the Famicom boom in Japan, and the MMO craze in continental East Asia, among other things. I probably would have even devoted a sentence or two to Sega's success in Brazil as part of discussing Nintendo and Sega's global rivalry. But a whole section on Latin America? The region has not had the impact either creatively or financially to warrant such treatment in the top level article. Of course, I would have no problem with a daughter article on the topic that goes into as much detail as the reliable sources allow. Indrian (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

The second generation of home consoles is listed as lasting to 1992 when it should be 1982. 2602:306:BCDA:EC30:10CA:97C5:49BE:9BEE (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

1992 appears to be correct, read the third paragraph of the main article Second generation of video game consoles – X201 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I always find it very odd that we on Wikipedia consider a 'generation' to continue until the discontinuation of the last console of said generation, but I really don't want to get involved with that discussion myself ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2016

A game made in 1997 called Total Annihilation should be added as it was the first RTS game to implement 3D units and terrain physics and line of sight. 209.169.99.122 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Real-time strategy became a popular genre of computer games in the early 90s, with Dune II setting the standard game mechanics of many games since. Meanwhile, Alone in the Dark influenced the survival-horror genre with its action-adventure elements. It established the formula that would later flourish on CD-ROM–based consoles, with games such as Resident Evil, which coined the name "survival horror" and popularized the genre, and Silent Hill.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm personally aware of Total Annihilation, but we'll need a source to back up that it was the first to implement those features. While this claim is also made at Total Annihilation, it is done in the lead only without any sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

The Nintendo Switch marks the start of generation 9, potentially along with Xbox Scorpio, if it indeed can be considered a separate console to the Xbox one, but this remains yet to be seen. 101.164.179.118 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are numerous discussions about this already at Nintendo Switch. -- ferret (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e0912.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/simslivinlarge/news_2857556.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501024742/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/china_social_gaming_landscape_whats_coming_next.php to http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/china_social_gaming_landscape_whats_coming_next.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://life.chinatimes.com/2009Cti/Channel/Life/life-article/0%2C5047%2C100304%20112009090100272%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

Secretdj2 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

For the Westinghouse Pavilion at the New York World's Fair in 1940 nuclear physicist Edward Condon, then associate director of research at the Westinghouse Electric Company Link in Pittsburgh, designed and patented an electromechanical machine called the Nimatron to play the ancient mathematical strategy game of Nim. Condon and associates applied for a patent on this early special purpose electromechanical computer in April 26, 1940, after which the machine was displayed at the World's Fair in May 11, 1940. They received U.S. patent 2,215,544 for "Machine to Play Game of Nim" on September 24, 1940. The first two images of the machine reproduced with the patent presumably show the machine as it was built. Other drawings in the machine are logic diagrams. The machine played 100,000 games at the fair, winning about 90,000. Most of its defeats were apparently administered by attendants to demonstrate that possibility. When the machine did lose it would "present its opponent with a token coin stamped with the words 'Nim Champ'

This should be put in. 162.89.0.47 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This fact might be irrelevant or its sources aren't reliable, hence my request for a consensus. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

(Nimatron) It is the first computer dedicated solely to gaming and the first computer dedicated to Nim's game. Edward Condon was the inventor who applied for a patent on April 26, 1940, after which the machine was displayed at the World's Fair Season 2 in May 11, 1940. They received U.S. patent on September 24, 1940.

• There are more resources that can be included* 162.89.0.47 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My answer has not changed from the last time you made this request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding computer games as precursors of video games

Arguably as it lacked a CRT-type display, the Nimatron falls under "electronic game" and not "video game" (the first para of the body makes that distinction). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Nimraton is not the first computer dedicated solely to gaming. The electro mechanic computer El Ajedrecista by Leonardo Torres Quevedo was created around 1914. Diego (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This IP has tried dragging this around all of the Early history of video games articles it applies to in the last few weeks (basically that and Nimrod (computing)); it got rejected because while Nimatron was a game, and involved electricity, that was really all it was. It wasn't a computer- it was a complicated set of electric relays, which means that it wasn't even an "electronic game", it was an "electro-mechanical game". While the concept of tracking the evolution of games from analog to mechanical to electro-mechanical to electronic to video would make for a fascinating article, the Nimatron just doesn't make it up to the level of video game, which is what this article here is about. --PresN 02:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

An "electromechanical computer" is a computer, and it is a computer game if it is able to compute the rules of a game and a user can play against a fully automated opponent. It is not a general computer, but that is not a requirement for a machine to be a computer game. This article needs to follow sources like Twisty little passages and describe the precursors of video games, i.e. computer games that preceded the use of video displays; we could include them in their own section "precursors/early computer games", but the history is not complete without the understanding that games using a video display did not appear in a vacuum, the rule engines had already been invented. (It currently has a section titled Origins of the computer game after all, so these are not offtopic.)

Conversely, if we restrict ourselves to a strict definition of video game, the Nimrod and Bertie the Brain should go as well, as neither of them used video displays. But I'd prefer to follow sources and properly describe the history of all relevant early devices that were able to play fully automated games. Diego (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've also noted that History of computer games redirects here, so until we create a separate article for the history of non-video-based computer games, it make sense to describe them here. Diego (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't "make sense" to describe early computer games here, they do not fit the article's subject. That would be like putting information about milk in an article about cheese because nobody had yet created the article for milk. If you want to put them in a different article, by creating History of computer games or maybe appending something to the title that indicates they are before video games (History of computer games prior to video games)? then WP:SOFIXIT, instead of putting them in an article where they don't fit._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Shall we remove Nimrod and Bertie as well, then? They are not video games by any reasonable definition that wouldn't include El Ajedrecista and Nimrod's predecessor Nimatron as well, given that implementation details like the display technology have been abstracted away. I don't understand your desire to exclude content from reliable sources that discuss this topic, based on some preconceived idea for the essence of video games, given that the definition of what constituted a video game is itself vague as documented in this article. Diego (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The articles about Cheese and History of cheese both contain information about milk, in their Origins sections. So far for your analogy. Diego (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

^{The article about milk already exists, that was the point zxcvbnm was making. - X201 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)}

One author has decided to mention the chess player, while all the major surveys of video game history have left it out. This means it has not received the coverage in reliable sources necessary to warrant inclusion in this article. There is a good reason for this, as every popular and technical definition of computer/video/electronic games requires at a minimum the use of electronic logic circuits. Bertie and Nimrod fall into the broadest accepted definition of a video game as an interactive experience incorporating electronic logic and a display. Chess player falls into a weird hole in the definition being an electromechanical analog device. At least a handful of coin-operated EM games also incorporate machine-controlled opponents exhibiting primitive AI, but we don't include those here either since they fail on the complete definition. If the chess player had influenced later developments in video game design, it might still be worth a brief mention, but there is no evidence that any developments in video game history can be traced back to it. It would be appropriate to discuss the computer in an article on the history of chess AI, but not in a general history of video games. Indrian (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing I would think acceptable is to say "before video games there were electromechanic games such as Nimatron" and are covered elsewhere, and then discuss that early "video" that used a CRT monitor is where this article properly starts. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Masem:: "before video games there were electromechanic games such as Nimatron" and are covered elsewhere. I'd agree to something like that. The article should avoid giving the impression that the history of fully automated gaming devices starts with the examples currently included in the article, with section titles like "Origins of the computer game" where some earlier computer games are excluded. But what would be that "elsewhere" which should include this detailed description? For me the adequate place would be Early history of video games, which being a sub-article should be able to include much more detail about the precedents, but this content is also being rejected there.

@X201 @Indrian: all the major surveys of video game history have left it out. What would be those "major surveys of video game history"? The sentences "The earliest known computer games actually implemented " in particular, and the corresponding "The first publicly demonstrated electronic game was created in 1950" in Early history of video games#Initial games are both embarrassingly unsourced, which is unacceptable for any sentence claiming something to be a "first" of any class (you know, extraordinary claims...). And at least one of the sources used in the article [1] *does* refer to the Nimatron as an "early computer game" even if it is electromechanical device, so the idea of only fully electronic machines being accepted as precursors of video-games is not based in the available references. In this article, the defining characteristic for "early electronic games" is processing a classic games´ set of rules". Really, there doesn't seem to be a single unified criterion that we can find in these references that strongly allows for the inclusion of some devices and the exclusion of others, and certainly not one based on their implementation technology. Diego (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Haven't got a clue what the surveys are. Try asking Indrian seeing as they said it. Also the @ thing is very flaky, especially on indented lines, Masem probably won't have received a notification, always use Template:Ping to be sure a notification gets to where you want it. - X201 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry X201, your right, that reply was addressed to Indrian's comment, my mistake.

Indrian: I've found the following books about the history of video games and game design which cover electro-mechanical devices: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It seems to me that electromechanical devices is considered a relevant related topic to talk about in the history of video-games, even if they are not called video games as such (in fact, several of them are mentioned in the article already). Their definitions of what is to be considered "first" seem to be largely inconsistent, though; I think we should abstain to include any such descriptions of what came first of any kind, as those don't seem to be much reliable. Diego (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You have erected a straw man here, as no one ever claimed EM games are never discussed in regards to the history of video games. It's the chess player, and particularly the chess player as a precursor to video games, that is not covered. More precise language in this article about "electronic" computer games makes sense and has now been implemented. We could have accomplished that quite easily without histrionics, but at least we got there in the end. Do remember, however, that in this underdeveloped field of scholarship with poorly defined terms "computer game" will not necessarily encompass every game-playing computer ever made, so your position on the chess player is no more "correct" than mine. Honestly, even Bertie and Nimrod may ultimately fail the definition depending on how it comes down on issues like hardware versus software and the stated intent of the product, but unlike the chess player they are discussed in surveys like Phoenix IV and Replay and they just barely meet the broadest definition of a "video game" as an interactive entertainment experience incorporating electronic logic circuits and a display. This conundrum will be up to the sources to decide, and at this point we do not have a good answer yet. The real problem is that no one has produced a good survey of early -- i.e. Pre-1960 -- computer gaming yet, so these issues remain murky. If you know of any I missed, however, I do encourage you to bring them here for evaluation. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please give me some leeway, PresN said that Nimatron "Nimatron just doesn't make it up to the level of video game, which is what this article here is about", and ZXCVBNM said that " early computer games do not fit the article's subject". Masem's comment was the first one accepting to include a brief mention of those significant previous EM devices. I agree that Bertie and Nimrod fail the definition of video games, but I don't see that as a reason to remove them, but to include per WP:DUE WEIGHT other devices that have also been mentioned in reliable sources as relevant to the history of video games. I've provided at least two reliable sources where El Ajedrecista is discussed in this context; one is the most well known book on Interactive fiction, the other calls its maker the "inventor of the video game"; and there are several more where those came from. This already has more direct support than your claim of what is the "popular definition" of a video game involving only electronic devices. In fact our primary reference for the definition, the Encyclopedia of Video Games,[7] highlights the rule-based nature of games as "the only universal" inclusion criterion, and defends that electronic games without video like those would not count as video games. Diego (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Indrian, thanks for your latest edits. Any idea on how we could fix the lack of direct sourcing for the claim of these devices being the "first" electronic games? I think we could simple present them as early devices based on their dates, or we could actually try to use one of the references that makes a similar claim and adapt the text to match more closely the text of the reference. Diego (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Generations of video games

Generations of video games are treated, at least here on Wikipedia, as a fundamental fact, being the basis of article names such as Seventh generation of video game consoles. But nowhere have I seen a good definition. Certainly not in this article, which mostly relies on the repetitive formula "the <number>th generation emerged in <year>", as if the only discerning criterion were the year. But if that's true, why use the term "generation" instead of simply using years to begin with? Is it just laziness because smaller numbers are easier to remember than 4-digit years, and because it allows one to hide one's lack of knowledge behind a word that sounds good and is not open to immediate scrutiny? But how is that more encyclopedic?

If generation counting really is useful to anything other than creating advertisement buzz, and if it can be sourced, can someone please write clear distinctions here? I can turn it into a nice table then, and add it to the article. — Sebastian 19:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Generations have a long and heated history on Wikipedia, including issues involving citogenesis. Prior to the 7th, or possibly 6th generation, things are organized typically as 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, etc generations. There's a lot discussion concerning this issue and the Nintendo Switch at Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles currently. -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017

In the sub-paragraph, "Video game crash of 1983", It states this note. "The rise of a globally important video gaming industry in Japan, creating important rooms for companies like Nintendo and Sega and" I believe that at the end of the sentence, it should say, Nintendo, Sega, And Sony, As I believe that it was deleted. This is what I think should be added to finish the sentence. Note: I can tell somebody deleted it because there isn't a period.

If this isn't what should be there, then please replace it with the right thing.

Sincerely, Minionmanic (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It was and and linking the next sentence. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017

In the sub-paragraph, Video game crash of 1983, it says this. (Dot here) the commercial failure of important Atari 2600 titles and (Dot here) home computers emerging as a new and more advanced gaming platform, making consoles quickly unpopular and obsolete.

It says this in two paragraphs, But I think that They should be one so it would read this:

the commercial failure of important Atari 2600 titles and home computers emerging as a new and more advanced gaming platform, making consoles quickly unpopular and obsolete.

I hope someone can fix this.

Sincerely, Minionmanic (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, you are probably right that consolidating them would look better, but I'll leave that for someone else to fix. What I will fix is the erroneous statement that the arrival of home computers redered consoles unpopular and obsolete. In truth, they did neither. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Minionmanic and Indrian:  Done. I agree that there's no point in having this as a list of points instead of just typed out as sentences. The lead sentence previously read:

"At the end of 1983, the industry experienced a severe downturn."

I changed it to read:

"At the end of 1983, several factors, including a market flooded with poor-quality games, the commercial failure of several important Atari 2600 titles, and home computers emerging as a new and more advanced gaming platform, caused the industry to experience a severe downturn."

For that matter, the list of effects and results should go, too. I'll try to figure that out in a second. CityOfSilver 21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's also  Done. The next part used to read:

"Effects and results of the crash include:

• Atari video game burial: a burial by Atari of thousands of unsold and returned consoles and games in New Mexico, 1983.
• The rise of a globally important video gaming industry in Japan, creating important rooms for companies like Nintendo and Sega.
• The worldwide popularity of the third-generation Nintendo Entertainment System, for which third-party game publishing was strictly overseen by Nintendo."

I replaced the list with:

"As a result of the crash, a globally important video gaming industry emerged in Japan, creating important room for companies like Nintendo and Sega. This brought about the worldwide popularity of the third-generation Nintendo Entertainment System, for which third-party game publishing was strictly overseen by Nintendo."

I tried to fit the Atari burial thing in there somewhere but it always just read like trivia. It's a memorable and important part of this but it's not so major as the stuff about Nintendo, Sega, and Japan so anyone who wants to know about it can click the link at the top of this section. CityOfSilver 21:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

"The second release of the generation was Sony's PlayStation 2 (PS2), which featured DVD-based game discs with 4.7GB capacity, increased processor and graphics ability over its predecessor including progressive-scan component video connections, optional 4-player connection with an available adapter, available Ethernet adapter..." is how this description of the PS2 (under the 6th generation section) should read. Currently, it says that the PS2 has built-in 4player capabilities, which is something that NONE of the PS2 models released had. It was controversial because, although they released a 4player adapter, their competitors (N64 & XBox) both DID have built-in 4player slots on their consoles. PS2 did not, however.

If I need sources, I'm sure this can be found in any PS2 manual for any model of that system, any video game magazine of the time, myself(who owned three of the four released models & had one of the first released units), the company themselves, or any other publication or website that compares the systems. I hope that is sufficient. Please let me know if you need anything else. Have a good day! Donjuggalo (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unsourced, and its unclear where you would want it inserted into the article. Please also remove informal language (I.e. system abbreviations, amperand, capital letters for emphasis, etc). -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch?

It isn't mentioned here at all. It should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but where in the article does it fit? It's currently debated whether the Switch is part of the current (8th) generation of game consoles or the first of the next (9th) generation. Arguments on both sides of the debate have merit, but until a determination is made (by a reliable source), it just doesn't fit yet. Esjs (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction between two paragraphs

It is said in the Early arcade video games (1972–1978) second paragraph that the ball-and-paddle market collapsed in 1974 due to market saturation. But in the First generation of home consoles and the Pong clones (1972–1978) that sales of dedicated ball-and-paddle systems were great in 1977. 84.50.78.189 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Carl Eric R.

• Two different markets. Arcade market collapsed in 1974. Home market started up in 1975 and collapsed after 1977. Indrian (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

From the Sixth Generation paragraph: "The Game Boy Advance, released in 2001, maintained Nintendo's market position with a high-resolution, full-color LCD screen and 16-bit processor allowing ports of SNES games and simpler companions to N64 and GameCube games." The Game Boy Advance's CPU was 32-bit, not 16-bit. CITATION: https://web.archive.org/web/20051003203011/http://www.nintendo.com:80/techspecgba 162.211.166.242 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Highway 89 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

In the "Fifth generation consoles (1993–2005) (32- and 64-bit)" it is incorrectly stated that no "main series" Final Fantasy games have been released on a Nintendo console since FFVI. This is no longer the case since the Nintendo Switch has seen several main series FF games ported to it recently.

 Not done: @Digitalschism: I agree, but please provide a reliable source(s)

CITATIONS: https://www.denofgeek.com/us/games/final-fantasy/276264/final-fantasy-nintendo-switch-ports

https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/final-fantasy-x-x-2-hd-remaster-switch/

Digitalschism (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks (though I used a different citation which was more explicit). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 01:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Change "A original PlayStation Portable" to "An original PlayStation Portable". 80.135.118.38 (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done --McSly (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning of the NES at the top (overview) of the page.

I think where it talks about the third generation of video game consoles in the overview, it should mention the NES. --DaRealJake (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Overly US centric?

The Master System is still produced and sold in Brasil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:D9F1:E040:DE18:1A62 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of major article reorganization proposal

I'm proposing a reorganization of several articles that will include or may impact this one that I've outlined at Talk:Video game console#Massive reorganization of several articles proposed and would like input there. --Masem (t) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

Remove Nintendo Switch from Eighth Generation, this a Ninth generation console/system. When a section is created for Ninth generation (PS5, Xbox Series X/S) Switch should go there. 24.93.67.158 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Consensus currently exists that the Switch is part of the 8th generation. Generations often have overlap, and until sourcing appears to groups the Switch (or a Switch 2 / Switch Pro) as "ninth generation", consensus won't change. At this time, sourcing for a "ninth generation" does not even truly exist yet. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

1964

1964 is the year of the release of the first industrial video game in history. The game is called Knowledge Computer from the american company Edex. It uses celluloid technology like for the film. Computer Quiz, released in 1967 by Nutting Associates company, is its spiritual sequel. Both video games are question and answer games. Knowledge Computer and Computer Quiz can be compared, for example, to The X-Files (1999) on PlayStation. Knowledge Computer was sold eight years before Table Tennis (1972) on the Odyssey console... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.153.106 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• The Knowledge Computer was an electromechanical quiz game using relays, film, and a projector. It fits no definition of a video game. Also, it is the spiritual successor to the Telequiz from 1946. It’s all a continuum. Indrian (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

2010s section overly focused on hardware.

The 2010s section only talks about the hardware, there is not a single mention about any video games released during this period. Surely there should be some mention of games like Minecraft, Fortnite, as well as a mention of the change in business models many developers are adopting, like free to play models. Also I guess there should now be a 2020s section mentioning the launch of the new consoles, as well as a mention of cloud services like Nvidia's GeForce Now, Google's Stadia, Amazon's Luna, Xbox & Playstation cloud gaming. Also, there's no mention at all of major platforms like Steam and new PC stores like Epic's store. Gman83 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

In the First handheld LED/VFD/LCD games section, third paragraph, it says "purred" and it should be spelled "spurred" Honeymusta (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

In the "32- and 64-bit home consoles" section it says "Sega has placed a great deal of emphasis on the 32-bit Sega Saturn, released in 1984". The Saturn was released in 1994 according to it's own page. Gathic89 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 20:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 April 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IRock9515.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMToler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kev2kus. Peer reviewers: Dlozano04, RandelitoRand.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Computer Space is it the first video game ?

I think that Computer Space (1971) is the first video game of the history. What do you think ?

--194.224.6.173 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone please fix the "risk-adverse" in the intro (and throughout the article)

It should be "risk-averse" and it's going to kill me. edit: Actually it looks like it's used wrongly 3 times in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BCF1:8F0:0:0:0:67E (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed. Indrian (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

VR and AR

This article is meant to be a very high level swath of the whole history of video games. While VR and AR do utilize different tech, they are frequently group under "mixed reality" so for a high level history, that level of organization is fine particularly as both broke ground in the 2010s. We don't need to go any finer than that. To add, the change is giving the 3ds AR Games demos far too much weight, as there is almost nothing to explain how they spurred AR games, compared to Pokémon Go. You can't use the instruction manual for that. Masem (t) 15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, we can leave the 3DS AR games out of it. But VR and AR are different technologies and have played out very differently in video games. VR and AR are each multi billion dollar industries that operate very differently from one another. Most AR games are and have been mobile games that are meant to be played on a smartphone. This is completely different from VR games which need multiple accessories and additional hardware. The platforms are completely different and each stands tall on its own. This warrants marking the two categories as distinct in the history of video games. Rosedaler (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Mixed reality is a slippery term that means different things to different people. Augmented reality and Virtual reality have much more real-world usage and history, especially in the context of video games. I maintain that the category should be split. Rosedaler (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't appreciate how you keep reverting my other unrelated edits to the article. I believe at this point my other edits have been reverted over three times today by you, so please stop. I will re-revert now for the sake of getting my other edits back, and then merge the two categories back into the one category again so we can continue the discussion. Rosedaler (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you think the article could be improved so much from how I wrote it, then maybe you should improve it instead of just deleting my changes. Rosedaler (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In the VG industry broadly, VR and AR are generally under mixed reality even though they are different tech...from the history of video games they are discussed as equivalent. As this is still a high level article about video games, we don't need to go into all the different definitions of mixed reality that exist at this level, its why we provide links to more appropriate sections. Just that all these alternative games to simple video displays started to come out in the 2010s.

You are also still including the 3ds AR games as significant, which they were not, and you are removing other gaming technology that also had AR like the EyeToy or Kinect. I really cannot improve your wording because you are substantially making it worse by this. Masem (t) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Eye toy and Kinect are categorically not AR, which is why I removed them. Otherwise, it’s good to have mentions of a couple of notable AR games. You keep saying the 3DS AR games are insignificant, even though over 70 million people had them on their 3DS. It doesn’t matter if it’s a prepackaged game. Super Mario brothers was prepackaged too, with the NES. Rosedaler (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, you’ll have to cite your source about VR and AR being “generally under mixed reality.” Mixed reality is a term that has been used to refer to a lot of conflicting things, like augmented reality directly or VR with a camera pass through. It means multiple things depending on who you ask and there really isn’t a great consensus on the term. I’d still like to at least rename the section to remove “mixed reality” from the title, while still keeping the paragraph that I wrote about it inside the section that explains the term. Rosedaler (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

from PlayStation Blog, as well as academic papers. You can't use your own perception to write these articles.

And actually, no, SMB was not a pack-in title on the NES. It was a launch title and most people bought it, which is why its sales numbers are far more reasonable. Masem (t) 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. For the time being I'll simply add a couple of subheadings to the section to denote the minor differences Rosedaler (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You really need to step back and review how WP writes articles per our MOS. You replaced the lede, which may long but fixable, with poorly written prose. You don't use subheadings for single paragraphs. You don't use random YouTube videos as sources. I know you are new so there are a lot of things you are jumping in on that you don't seem to have captured from our policies and guidelines. Masem (t) 17:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive editing. If you have a particular concern about an edit, revert only that edit. Otherwise, do not bulk revert edits.

For the time being, I will remove the youtube video source as you mentioned. Rosedaler (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You are the one that has come along and made significant changes to a rather key article without seeking consensus first. You can make these changes under WP:BOLD but if they are reverted you are not supposed to re-revert. As I've said, your attempt to change the lede is far too simplistic in writing and not summarizing the article. Also, you should not use primary sources for facts, particularly on thus page since that can be seen as promotional. There are multiple problems with your approaches in editing and writing here. Masem (t) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not re-reverted. I have made multiple different edits. Your continual bulk reversion of my edits is disruptive.

I will reiterate, if you have a particular concern about an edit, revert only that edit. Otherwise, do not bulk revert edits.

Furthermore, I had already re-added the content in question about the lead. And the template about it being too long is still valid. Rosedaler (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to work with me on improving the article, it would be better to do nothing than to try to stop me from improving it without you. Rosedaler (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Rosedaler, you need to read WP:BRD and follow the steps. Also, adding more than 4 KB of text to the intro and then flagging it as too long should probably tell you that what you are doing is wrong. --McSly (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I flagged the intro before I added the section. WP:BRD is only a suggestion, not a requirement. Please read the page. Also please see my comment on your talk page. Rosedaler (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making the lead more concise. Rosedaler (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not. Your writing style is not good for this type of article, its rather poor grammar and flow we expect. If you feel the lede needs trimming, that's fine but you need to let others do that. And while BRD is optional, flat out ignoring it will get you blocked. Masem (t) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is subjective. Also I have not ignored BRD.

Also, I don't appreciate your constant frequent criticisms of my writing style. According to English grammar rules and common sense, the prose that I'm putting on main article pages is valid. All else is subjective. Rosedaler (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The new additions are, frankly, terrible. Removed til they can be discussed further here. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"WP:BRD is only a suggestion, not a requirement." This newbie is anything but that if they are going to respond with that to criticism. They bulldozed a lot of Niantic related articles with no sourcing. I knew the terminology was correct when identified. I suggest seeing if reverting their edits to anything AR and VR is possible because it's most likely unsourced. – The Grid (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ali01225 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ali01225 (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Life Targets (1912)

Life Targets (1912) is it the first video game ? 195.53.245.125 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Shooting images projected by lanterns a "video game" may be a bit of a stretch. Zaathras (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

1958 Video Game "Tennis for Two" Created by William Higinbotham, Brookhaven National Laboratory

I suggest adding the following sentence as the second sentence of the article: "Tennis for Two" was developed by William Higinbotham of Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York and was publicly shown on October 18, 1958 at one of the Lab’s annual visitors’ days." Reference: https://www.bnl.gov/about/history/firstvideo.php Historiccomputing (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We have Tennis for Two covered in the very first section of the article. The problem with putting that in the lede is that most sources do not consider that the first video game, just a necessary step to get to Spacewar and Computer Space. Masem (t) 13:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a difficult and complex judgement call. There are of course many earlier games, including ones that ran on the TX-0 at MIT, the predecessor to the PDP-1 there, and many others. In my opinion, the article's introduction creates an inadvertent bias by taking "Spacewar" out of context from its predecessors which influenced its development. One possible alternative is to equip the readers with the necessary tools to form the criteria for judgement themselves along with a reference to the Wikipedia entry to the early history of video games which seems absent from this page (Early history of video games). I agree that most sources do not consider Tennis for Two as the first video game, but this is both a complex judgement comprised of first defining the criteria that must be met to be considered to be a video game, and then applying the criteria as a test. Instead of doing this for the reader, it is in my opinion better to let the reader make this judgement for themselves. I disagree with the consensus on the judgement regarding Tennis for Two because it is materially the same as "Pong", except that it did not generate an NTSC video signal for interoperability with commercial televisions. This difference might be considered to be the principal criteria for "video console" but not for "video game", especially because Spacewar on the PDP-1 did not generate an NTSC video signal. If the key criteria differentiating "video console" from "video game" is the ability to play more than one game, and "video" means NTSC compatibility, then once again Spacewar fails to meet this test as does Tennis for Two. So to reiterate my original point, I think that it's best to equip the reader with tools early in the article to navigate the complex judgements required for this topic. As written, I find the applied criteria to be arbitrary and biased. Historiccomputing (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The lede is meant to shortly summarize the article, and most sources point to Spacewar as the first real video game. We can't change that (what the sources say) no matter how much you feel it is wrong. Masem (t) 03:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, I understand your position. At a minimum, it would be good to let the reader know that there is a more comprehensive early history of video games available by providing a reference to Early history of video games within this article. Historiccomputing (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Its the first immediate link under the first section "Early history (1948–1970)". We definitely want to make sure the reader is aware of several "video game-shaped" efforts before Spacewar but as this article already lengthy, we provide the more detailed article there. Masem (t) 03:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)