[game_preservation] National Game Registry Blog

[Martin Goldberg]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Devin Monnens <dmonnens at gmail.com> wrote:

>> "How do you interface with a

>> video signal to produce interaction on a television set?", which was a

>> big deal that time.  That's why spot generation and manipulation is

>> usually the first step (and what Ralph did with the Odyssey and what

>> Ted designed for Computer Space).

>

> That's also what Baer holds the patent for :) THE most important patent, I'd

> say.

>


Yes, that and a lot of other great patents and inventions. ;)

Though the original patents are for the generation and user controlled
manipulation and interaction of objects via a video display.  That was
another strike against against Tennis for Two when trying to
invalidate the patents.  Besides no video, there was no actual user
controlled objects.  Spacewar! had them, but no use of video.  If
Ralph's patents had simply been in regards to the interaction of
objects in general, Spacewar! would certainly have been seen as an
earlier demonstration.  However the patents are in regards to the
technology, which was very important - the use and control of the
video signal to create and display said objects and create
interaction.


>>

>> That's one of the key reasons though why both Spacewar! and Tennis For

>> Two were thrown out of court as previous examples of technology to try

>> and invalidate Ralph's patents.  None of those had to do with video

>> technology.

>

> Yeah, the display monitors used different technology


Interestingly, a lot of people seem to misunderstand that part
unfortunately (not saying that you are).  They think CRT = video.  A
CRT is simply the display technology, not the method of display.
Video refers to the "technology of electronically capturing,
recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a
sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."  A video
signal is of course that transmission of information, and is used in
television.  It uses the crt (and other display devices) in a raster
(scanline) manner, producing pixels.  Vector display technology has no
display signal, it's basically an etch-a-sketch.  You are directly
controlling the beam of the CRT display.


>- even though the

> concept of manipulating a computer-generated object on a display device was

> the same.


Yes, which further confuses people.  Because the modern pop-culture
definition the term moved to relies on more of the interaction of
computer generated objects than the actual technology.


>

>

> Yeah - what I love now is the fight between 'video game' and 'videogame'.


I don't really buy in to it, it's a modern convention created by
people trying to come to terms with the actual meaning of the term vs.
the modern pop culture context.  Any way you space it, video is still
in the name.


> I'm glad Baer has taken the term 'videogame' :)


He hasn't, he uses video games.  The book was edited by Lenny, and
that's his spelling convention.  He artificially applied it everything
throughout the book, including to the point of renaming Video Games
magazine Videogames magazine.


> Of course, 'video' has its

> own set of connotations today, which was why we decided to go with 'computer

> game' because in all cases (from Spacewar and Tennis for Two to Odyssey,

> Tiger Handhelds, and audio games), they are controlled by computers.


It's a good choice, however it does bring up the question as to what
you define as a computer (or at least how this project defines it).
While Odyssey is electronic and digital, as are the early arcade
games, they are all state machines rather than general purpose
computers.  Some consider state machines computers, some don't.
And of note - Ralph does not consider the Odyssey to be a computer,
rather simply just an electronic device.  A digital one, but just an
electronic device none the less.

Also, I wouldn't shy away from preserving "video games" and it's
original contexts though.  It's a legitimate part of the history and
worthy of preservation.



> I admit

> I'm still getting used to it myself! I'll probably switch back to

> 'videogames' again in another five years - just wait!


It's all the same to me. ;)



Marty