Weekly Reader: "Higinbotham Inventor of Video Games&quo

[mezrabad]

My son gets a publication at his school called "Weekly Reader". Last month's reader (Dated March 3, 2006, Edition 2, Issue 20, Volume 75) is about inventions.

On the last page they list the Video Game.

Invention: Video Game
Year Invented: 1958
Inventor: William Higinbotham
Fun Fact: The first video game was called Tennis for Two

Also they have a problem under Math Matters: The video game was invented in 1958. how long have video games been played?

They are misinforming children all over the country!!! LOL

So, I'm sure they wouldn't mind if a few of us (read: as many of us as possible) contacted them and set them straight on who invented the video game. At the very least, they'll feel like they're being read.

This is the link to get to a form if you'd like to drop them a line.

http://www.weeklyreader.com/corporate/contact/contact_ed2.asp

Please mention it in this thread if you do.

[ProgrammingAce]

Many bothams died to bring us this information....

Duh, we all know that nintendo invented the video game...

[mezrabad]

Many bothams died to bring us this information....

LOL LOL

Damn, I wish I had said that!

[Mayhem]

So, I'm sure they wouldn't mind if a few of us (read: as many of us as possible) contacted them and set them straight on who invented the video game. At the very least, they'll feel like they're being read.

Set them straight... how? Depends if you consider Tennis For Two as a video game or not. What do you think is the correct answer then? Space War? It came four years later. It certainly is either of them.

Ralph Baer might be considered the "father of video games" but he certainly didn't invent them...

[Tan]

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Ralph Baer think up the idea in 1951 and follow through in 1966?

Tennis for Two wins on a hardware technicality, the first actual playable game was made in 1947, of course William Higinbotham has some small notoriety as a physicist on the Manhatten project :eek 2: giving him no small measure of stature, Thomas T. Goldsmith Jr eat your heart out LOL

[tom]

if in doubt, read here:


http://www.pong-story.com/intro.htm

[mezrabad]

So, I'm sure they wouldn't mind if a few of us (read: as many of us as possible) contacted them and set them straight on who invented the video game. At the very least, they'll feel like they're being read.

Set them straight... how? Depends if you consider Tennis For Two as a video game or not. What do you think is the correct answer then? Space War? It came four years later. It certainly is either of them.

Ralph Baer might be considered the "father of video games" but he certainly didn't invent them...

"Certainly"? Let me set YOU straight, and I mean that in a respectful, friendly conversational way.

He's the first one to make a device that broadcasts a game to a regular tv-set and not a specialized cathode ray tube. Tennis for Two was an Oscilliscope (sp?) hooked up to a mainframe. There was no outputting it to a TV and there was certainly no feasible way of mass producing it. As I understand it, the only reason why the world knows about Willy Higinbotham is because Nintendo wanted to not pay to become a licensee of the videogame patent. I'd like to see that patent, because I think the patent has Ralph Baer's name on it.

tom posted the link to look at. It makes clear that there is a difference between a computer game and a video game. It's important to note that the computer games made in 1947 and 1958 were unique in that they were only playable on those machines at that time. 1961's Spacewar! was only playable on a PDP-1 at the time and only if the PDP-1 had a monitor (which cost $100,000, if I recall) only three universities in the world had a monitor for their PDP-1. This wasn't an ordinary TV and the game wasn't programmed on anything you could carry around and hook up to your TV.

Ralph Baer invented a videogame that you could carry around and hook up to any ordinary TV. He could've sold it for $20 in 1972 if they hadn't tacked on all the accessories to inflate the price to $100.

Ralph Baer invented the videogame. It's a fact, really. I certainly don't blame you for not taking my word for it. I used to think the same way you do because I'd heard the same thing about Higinbotham. Do your own research and reach your own conclusion. The key is in how you define a videogame. If you define it as something that can be played on any CRT, then I guess we disagree, and that's okay. :)

[Tan]

aren't all older tv's crt? i thought so ;)

[tom]

The PDP-1 was one of the first 'affordable desktop (keyboard and screen anyway, the rest was 'wardrobe sized'') computers with a 'screen' as standard (as in PC nowadays with a 'monitor'), and programs were saved onto papertape, 'Space War' was later played on PDPs all over universities in the USA. Also, Nolan took Space War first to the arcades (Computer Space), before Ralph Baers Magnavox game Tennis (as in Ataris 'Pong').
There are always two ways to a journey:
You could argue, what was the first 'video game':

console: >>>Magnavox (Baer) - arcade (Atari) - home conversions (Atari)<<<

or computer: >>>(Willy Higinbotham - PDP - Apple II - PC)<<<.

Saying PDP game were only ever playable on a PDP is like saying a C-64 program only runs on a C-64 (which it does)

[rbudrick]

Ralph Baer invented the videogame. It's a fact, really. I certainly don't blame you for not taking my word for it. I used to think the same way you do because I'd heard the same thing about Higinbotham. Do your own research and reach your own conclusion. The key is in how you define a videogame. If you define it as something that can be played on any CRT, then I guess we disagree, and that's okay.

Well, considering how many videogames are played on LCDs or even those little filament whatchmacallits the Coleco mini arcades were made with, or plasma TVs, or vector screens, holograms, or whatever, then it really doesn't matter in the least what kind of monitor a game is played on to be called a videogame. A videogame gives not a shit what it is played on.

I know Baer made the argument in his book that his invention was the first to be played on a CRT, thereby dicounting all previous non-CRT games, but I must say this is just playing with semanctics. Is it really not a videogame because the oscilloscope was the monitor? That's a pretty shallow argument, to be quite honest.

But anyway, I don't think anybody in this forum should even be allowed to post without having read Baer's book first, heh heh. It's such a great read, and really is an incredible contribution to historical videogame literature.

-Rob

[Mayhem]

As with what rbudrick says, being able to play on a CRT is not really the qualifier in my book. After all, that would mean all handheld devices could not play video games by that definition ;)

To me a video game is "a programmed game that runs on an electronic computational device". To me that includes Tennis for Two, and certainly Space War on the PDP1.

[mezrabad]

As with what rbudrick says, being able to play on a CRT is not really the qualifier in my book. After all, that would mean all handheld devices could not play video games by that definition ;)

To me a video game is "a programmed game that runs on an electronic computational device". To me that includes Tennis for Two, and certainly Space War on the PDP1.

Was Zork a videogame, because it's "a programmed game that runs on an electronic computational device"? I'll be seriously surprised if anyone here calls Zork a videogame. Then again, it also seems silly to call Tennis for Two a computer game, but if we were to figure out the cost of the equipment needed to run it, I think that term applies.

People do make distinctions between computer games and videogames otherwise, couldn't we say that all videogames are computer games? Why was the distinction ever made? If we can say that Tennis for Two was a videogame using a computer and an oscilliscope then why can't we say PONG was a computer game using a TV and some electronic circuits?

We can lump them all together under electronic entertainment or some other encompassing term, but there are subcategories; we think of them differently. We don't call Zork a videogame, we don't call PONG a computer game. Is it because of the gameplay or is it because of what they ran on?

It might be that the only difference between a computer game and a video game is the cost of the equipment needed to play it.

Oh and BTW, it was Spacewar! :) Of course, the exclamation point on the end of Spacewar! would also imply that it's not a videogame unless there's an exclamation point in the title. Really, the only true videogame system is the Odyssey^2, because it played on a TV and because it had exclamation point almost all of its titles.

[rbudrick]

Videogames can be computer games, and usually are, but don't have to be computer games. The original Oddyssey and many videogame devices of the time were not computers in any way more than the average lowly thermostat...

I don't think the "computer or not" argument really came up....

-Rob

[NeoZeedeater]

Computer games are video games. And yes Zork absolutely is a video game. The type of screen doesn't matter.

Ralph Baer may have been the greatest contributor to early gaming and he did invent the console, gun games among other things(his book is awesome too) but he didn't invent gaming in general.

What interests me is finding out if A.S. Douglas' Naughts and Crosses is truly a video game as it's older than Tennis for Two. Judging by the simulation of it you can play on some site, it seems like a video game to me.

[mezrabad]

Then Baer gets credit for inventing a thermostat that could play something he called "video games".

It's too bad the oscilliscopic games market had such a severe crash in 1960 (when Tennis for Two was disassembled), because the world will never know what might have been. I'm sure every family would've wanted a mainframe and an oscilliscope.

Maybe it's better to call Ralph Baer "the person who came up with the idea of, and the means by which we are capable of, playing electronically generated games on our television sets"

I wish someone would come up with a simplified term for it with out resorting to biologically meaningless anthropomorphic terms.

[Tan]

Computer games are video games. And yes Zork absolutely is a video game. The type of screen doesn't matter.

Ralph Baer may have been the greatest contributor to early gaming and he did invent the console, gun games among other things(his book is awesome too) but he didn't invent gaming in general.

What interests me is finding out if A.S. Douglas' Naughts and Crosses is truly a video game as it's older than Tennis for Two. Judging by the simulation of it you can play on some site, it seems like a video game to me.

the 1947 "cathode ray tube amusement device" even more so, it's like a missile command prototype that used overlays for targets when you fired your missiles.

[slapdash]

[EDIT: double post, sorry]

[slapdash]

Not to add fodder here, but I think Ralph is right in a sense -- videogames require a VIDEO signal, hence the name. Tennis for Two did NOT use video. I'm not so sure about Spacewar, but I think quite possibly it is also not a videogame in this sense because the CRT was driven in a different way (i.e. not a "video" AKA "television" signal).

The problem is, today the term "videogame" has become a bit generic, similar to the way Kleenex (a brand) became kleenex (an object). Back in the 80s, "electronic games" were NOT called "videogames" by the gaming press, but today with portable programmable systems, this has gotten well confused. I seem to recall Arnie Katz saying that the Gameboy is NOT a videogame for the same reason Baer says that Tennis for Two is not a videogame...

To me, Tennis for Two was more of a precursor, as was the Tic-Tac-Toe game before that. To me, Ralph Baer is the father of home videogames, Bushnell the father of arcade videogames, and Russell the father of computer games. Any of these can be argued, except probably Baer when you include "home" in it.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Hah! Man. This is the same argument that I remember playing out in the pages of VG&CE like 15 years ago. Nothing ever changes.

I can't say I really care who invented video games, but I certainly am curious about this "Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device" patent from 1947. I see that mentioned every time this argument comes up, but Tan's description of it being similar to Missile Command is by far the most detailed account I've ever read of what it actually was. Which is why I had assumed that nothing was known about the actual device aside from the name and patent date. Does anyone here have any other info about it? Or links? It sounds really interesting.


...word is bondage...

[Tan]

i had seen pics of it on the net around 10 years ago or so, they had pics of the screen overlays that were used for it, and you needed to use the knobs sort of etch-a-sketch style to control the missiles.

info is damned hard to find on it now, even detailed info on the 2 inventers is vague, but i think the patents for it can still be found.

it'll take a bit of reading but here's a description:

Link (http://vintage-reprints.com/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=Cathode+Ray+Tu be+Toy&x=5&y=8)

[rolenta]

Let's settle this once and for all!


Ralph Baer: Father of Home Videogames

Nolan Bushnell: Father of Arcade Videogames

Steve Russell: Father of Computer Games

Willy Higginbotham: Father of Oscillioscope Games

But let's remember that the original patent is in Ralph Baer's name!

[rbudrick]

Maybe it's better to call Ralph Baer "the person who came up with the idea of, and the means by which we are capable of, playing electronically generated games on our television sets"

I wish someone would come up with a simplified term for it with out resorting to biologically meaningless anthropomorphic terms.

Yeah, no kidding, huh?


Let's settle this once and for all!


Ralph Baer: Father of Home Videogames

Nolan Bushnell: Father of Arcade Videogames

Steve Russell: Father of Computer Games

Willy Higginbotham: Father of Oscillioscope Games

But let's remember that the original patent is in Ralph Baer's name!

Right, I don't think anyone disputes that, Rolenta. I think people dispute which one came first and therefore invented the first videogame of any kind whatsoever. Of course, the patent helps Baer legally, but doesn't historically mean he was the first one to invent a videogame. I will say, though....he did it completely independently, believeing he was first, having never heard of these guys that came before.

-Rob

[rolenta]

Notice how I phrased it,

I for one do not consider a computer game (or an Oscillioscope-based game for that matter) as a Videogame. So that leaves Baer and Bushnell. And since Baer's work predated Bushnell's work (although Bushnell's got ot market first) I consider Ralph the true father of videogames.

[Ed Oscuro]

You know, I just remembered the old Tic-tac-toe idea somebody did for their PhD back in the day, like 1953 -dunno if it was implemented - that somebody or other came up with (not Russell, I don't know who), so Higginbotham might not even have the first digital game, and Space War might not be the first real computer game. Something like Tic-Tac-Toe had to appear before Space War, which is far more complex.

Anyway, the screen type doesn't matter. Modern game systems can view video images if you have the right hardware and a signal, but the Vectrex (which is usually considered a home arc..er, video game) can't.

The distinction is the primary use of the thing.

In all due respect, I don't think rolenta's description for Willy is fair. He was the inventor of the action game (of the sports type), and first to use a dedicated system employing digital components in conjunction with analog systems, and those digital components are the essential feature of every game, be they for computers, the Nuon, Chip-8, Nintendo vs. Mini, you name it. Although the game gets less press than Space War (especially back then), the fact that the designed circuitry had a dedicated function is just as important as a game designed for a ready-made general purpose computer. Higginbotham's approach to the problem foreshadowed the approach engineers trying to keep on budget, and the in-house chip designs (Konami custom chips, or Hudson CPUs, for example) that have appeared over the years are the descendants of that cobbled-together (but well designed) collection of parts.

[slapdash]

Anyway, the screen type doesn't matter. Modern game systems can view video images if you have the right hardware and a signal, but the Vectrex (which is usually considered a home arc..er, video game) can't.

The distinction is the primary use of the thing.

My point was that the distinction has CHANGED over time. In the beginning, the screen type DID matter, and that's WHY they're called VIDEO games. It is only because the category has widened over time that we can now HAVE this debate. :-)

[MachineGex]

So what is a Vectrex? It doesn't hook up to a TV, so by someones definition it isn't a video game? I personally consider Zork a text based video game. It's a game that plays on a video screen, to me, a video game. Aren't all games computer programs of sorts? Why say one game isn't a video game because it is played on a different type of screen? I consider all of them video games, some are console video games and some aren't, but to me, they are all video games.

[Ed Oscuro]

My point was that the distinction has CHANGED over time. In the beginning, the screen type DID matter, and that's WHY they're called VIDEO games. It is only because the category has widened over time that we can now HAVE this debate. :-)
No, the distinction was originally between the main use of the system. The dedicated screen separated arcade from affordable (different from the PDP-9!) computer games, but the real difference was that one system was adapted to play games (the computers, being mainly designed until the 1990s for business applications), and another was designed to play games (the arcade and video games). One telling example of why "video games" was chosen to separate the two is that early games for microcomputers were for text terminals or printers. See David H. Ahl's "Basic Computer Games," Microcomputer Edition, first printed in October 1978, and written for an audience that had to game with a teletype terminal. Indeed, the author himself (who had seen a graphical game in action when he saw Higginbotham's game back in the fifties, around the time he learned to program in 1956) thanks a corporation for sending him a teletype terminal to test and print the example games on, but he didn't have access to a video terminal!

There's always been a distinction between vector (a dead genre) and raster ("video") displays, but a term like "vector games" isn't even found in the original Vectrex advertising to the best of my knowledge - they called it a full-on "Arcade System" (http://www.tomheroes.com/Video%20Games%20FS/game%20ads/vectrex_system.htm), and naturally all the arcade games with vector graphics were simply called "arcade games," so the distinction is really only between video games and computer games.

Until the 90s, computers were made primarily with scientific and later word processing (business) applications in mind - and systems designed for game use were "video games."

It's a small distinction, indeed, and I definitely agree that the distinction has changed over time ("video games" are now console game machines), but the fundamental distinction between affordable computer games and dedicated game machines (be they Pongs or Xbox units) hasn't changed.

I am definitely uneasy saying that Space War was never called a video game at the time (which might be flat out wrong), but it's definitely important to note that despite having gained screens over the years, computer games are still called computer (or commonly "PC" and maybe "Mac" games) games, and dedicated game machines are still called "video games." My explanation seems to fit that nicely.

[rolenta]

Until the 90s, computers were made primarily with scientific and later word processing (business) applications in mind - and systems designed for game use were "video games..

Not exactly. Don't forget the Atari and Commodore computers which were powerful computers in their own right. The Atari 800 was a serious contender to the Apple II and it also supported a large collection of games. Unfortunately, the Atari name made people think of it as a game machine.

[googlefest1]

I thought the story of the oscilliscope thing was :

there was a broken oscilliscope and then guy messed around with it untill it started to perform the tennis for 2 function. This is the first i am hearing that he connected it to a mainframe.

Next - i thought that he never called the "thing" a game. I thought he just used it in a demonstration during tours of the lab that it was in. Not intended to be used to make money off of or to bring to the masses.

I thought he called it a game after the odysey came out.

I didnt know there was a pattent on it.

Im just saying this just in case it sparks some real facts that haven't been mentioned before that other member may know about.

Spacewar! - i dont know much about it - i actualy thought it came out soon after the odysey. - I need to check out some of the books mentioned.

if spacewar! did come out before the odysey AND if it was invented with out seeing any early demos or hearing about Bear's ideas then i would say its the first video game. Regardless weather it could be played by the masses or not. Untill i find more info regarding the osciliscope thing i wont call it a game - just a fluke occurance in video game history.

i hope this may have jogged some more factual memory

[rolenta]

I thought he just used it in a demonstration during tours of the lab that it was in. Not intended to be used to make money off of or to bring to the masses..

True


I didnt know there was a pattent on it.

There wasn't


Spacewar! - i dont know much about it - i actualy thought it came out soon after the odysey. if spacewar! did come out before the odysey AND if it was invented with out seeing any early demos or hearing about Bear's ideas then i would say its the first video game.

Spacewar was released six months before the Odyssey. However it was designed after the Odyssey and after Baer applied for the videogame patent. It took several years for Baer could find a company interested in marketing the Brown Box. All of this is thoroughly detailed in Baer's book "Videogames: In The Beginning" available from Rolenta Press (http://www.rolentapress.com)

[Ed Oscuro]

Until the 90s, computers were made primarily with scientific and later word processing (business) applications in mind - and systems designed for game use were "video games..

Not exactly. Don't forget the Atari and Commodore computers which were powerful computers in their own right. The Atari 800 was a serious contender to the Apple II and it also supported a large collection of games. Unfortunately, the Atari name made people think of it as a game machine.
Hmm. Those were all around 1979 at earliest, correct (I was thinking of the TRS-80 myself, which indeed can play similar enough action games)? My main question becomes whether the term "video games" was in use before this point as the diametric opposite to "computer games." I think that the earliest Computer Space style games (roughly '76) created a division between computer - teletype? - games, and arcade games.

[googlefest1]

yes i know it took years for bear to get a company interested in his idea -- but in the mean time he was working on it and demoing it. My question was geared more towards - were the people or person that made spacewar! inspired by bear's idea (during the time no one was interested in it)

[rolenta]

There is no evidence that Nolan Bushnell or Ted Dabney were aware of Baer's work.

[rolenta]

Hmm. Those were all around 1979 at earliest, correct (I was thinking of the TRS-80 myself, which indeed can play similar enough action games)? My main question becomes whether the term "video games" was in use before this point as the diametric opposite to "computer games." I think that the earliest Computer Space style games (roughly '76) created a division between computer - teletype? - games, and arcade games.

The 400 & 800 were released in 1978.

My distinction has always been whether the software is written for a dedicated console or a computer. A computer game to me is no different than Word Processing software and is dependent on the hardware. A videogame will play on a console that has custom chips that were created to enhance the games. I don't make any distinction between arcade, handheld, console, raster, or vector. To me they're all videogames.

[mezrabad]

Spacewar was released six months before the Odyssey. However it was designed after the Odyssey and after Baer applied for the videogame patent. It took several years for Baer could find a company interested in marketing the Brown Box. All of this is thoroughly detailed in Baer's book "Videogames: In The Beginning" available from Rolenta Press (http://www.rolentapress.com)

I don't think you intended to say Spacewar here, I think you are referring to Computer Space.

[rolenta]

I don't think you intended to say Spacewar here, I think you are referring to Computer Space.

Correct!

[PDP-13]

I sincererly doubt, that Tennis for Two was ever connected to a mainframe.

What I've heard was that it was connected to a Analog Computer which is a VERY, VERY different beast altogether.

In short its an Electronic game, but barely a video game (no DIGITAL computer). (Which also includes that 70 era Analog Electronic system 'Brown Box')

Also the PDP-1 that the original Spacewar! ran on was a 1961 'Economical' "Mainframe" (actually it was a Mini-computer not a true mainframe, the word for mini just did not exist back then). True economical mean only a millionare could afford one, versus a billionare.

Also Spacewar! was developed around 1962-'3 (the true date escapes me, ATM) well before any commercial analog or digital 'Video games' were developed.

It also had joysticks too (hand made by the programmers, but you get the idea) and the display was a huge radar-esque vector screen.

Everything before that is not a true video game. (no scorekeeping, non-commercial, frequently just a 'demo' to impress the non-technical).

I also assume you could rent computer time to 'play' Spacewar! on the PDP-1. Thus the first... 'Arcade' game too. :D

[Ed Oscuro]

The 400 & 800 were released in 1978.
What's that sound? Glug glug...ya sunk my battleship LOL


My distinction has always been whether the software is written for a dedicated console or a computer. A computer game to me is no different than Word Processing software and is dependent on the hardware. A videogame will play on a console that has custom chips that were created to enhance the games. I don't make any distinction between arcade, handheld, console, raster, or vector. To me they're all videogames.
That's very reasonable. I'm still at a loss as to how the term "video games" would have come about, but I'll discover it somehow.


I sincererly doubt, that Tennis for Two was ever connected to a mainframe.

What I've heard was that it was connected to a Analog Computer which is a VERY, VERY different beast altogether.
It's been a while since I read the online article, but Higginbotham has noted that he used digital components for some parts of the game that required speed - analog for everything else. I don't think "computer" applies in the sense of a general purpose computer of any sort, and certain fast calculations were done with simple digital circuits.

[rolenta]

I'm still at a loss as to how the term "video games" would have come about, but I'll discover it somehow.

I once asked Al Alcorn who first came up with the term video game and he wasn't sure but he believed it was Atari shortly after the release of Home Pong. I know that the boxes for the Odyssey 100 and 200, which came out after Home Pong, say they're from Magnavox, the originators of videogames, or something to that effect.

[tom]

Try Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game

[rolenta]

Try Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game

While Wikipedia is a great resource, it's user written and anybody can basically write what they want.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hmm, going back to the assertion I made that computers were generally for scientific/business/practical applications...I still think that's a pretty strong case. As rolenta said, the Atari name made people think the excellent Atari 8-bit computers were game machines, and computer manufacturers were afraid for years that having a machine get branded as a "game machine" would harm its image as a serious machine. IBM's PC standard came to dominate the market, and Apple replaced the //gs with the Mac, after all.

Anyhow, here's Mr Ahl's take on the subject:


Hi Ed:
Thanks for your e-mail. You're right in saying that back in the 60's and 70's, computer games (mostly played on a Teletype terminal, but sometimes with output displayed on a CRT -- first ones in the mid 60's) were thought of as quite different from arcade games (first ones in the mid to late 70's) and home video games (also mid to late 70's for the first ones). As time progressed, arcade games continued to be described as such (and still are), but in the early 80's, the terms computer games and video games tended to merge. Purists still continued to use the two terms but the world at large didn't differentiate, particularly after Atari (and others) started producing combined computer and video game systems that used a TV set to display the images. Willy Higginbotham's much earlier game in the late 50's was a bit of an anomoly as it used more-or-less standard electronic components (rheostats for controls, oscilloscope for output) controlled by a mainframe computer [Donner analog]. Frankly, I don't remember what he called it way back then.
I wouldn't really want to get into the subject of whether Willy deserves credit or not - Baer would've loved to get access to the equipment Higginbotham did. Baer apparently knew what he wanted to do as far back as 1951, but his insistence on calling Tennis for Two a "demo," not a "game," seems a bit overboard :p