1001 VG Book #02 - "Pong" - (1972)

commentary about the book article for:

#2 = Pong (1972)

- review by MK (Michael Kittymycack)

- Arcade

  - This entry was awful. First, I really hate it when they describe Pong as having "english". If you've ever played any actual racquet sport, or even Billiards, you'll understand that "english" is spin you purposely place on a ball to affect trajectory and bounce. Ping Pong, especially at high levels of play, has huge amounts of spin... and there is no equivalent in Pong. The only thing happening here is the angle the ball rebounds is affected by the location it hits the paddle. - Then there's the story about the game breaking shortly after it was installed due to a completely stuffed coin tray. It wasn't "shortly after" Pong was placed that Andy Capp's Tavern called… it actually took a couple weeks to fill the coin slot by all accounts. Still, it was doing high coin drop in short order.

  - Sayng that as soon as Pong was a hit “an industry was born” is also inaccurate. The coin-op industry had other hits going strong, and new games coming every month at least.  Pong was an attempt at a new and novel variation of coin-op game. Once it hit big, it was somewhat classified in a category the coin-op industry called "tv games" and later more broadly "videos". Pong clones were very popular for two to three years after Pong, with many clones and competitors jumping on this new type of coin-op game. Although Pong started the popularization of the "video game" coin-op, the big transition to them being the primary type game really took off once Space Invaders became a massive hit starting late 1978.

  - Finally, the most egregious mistake in the article is talking about Pong as having a computer AI opponent. What!?! Obviously they were not playing the original 1972 game, but some kind of port if they were playing against a computer opponent. Honestly, there was no ability for computer AI - there was no microchip or computing going on.  Analog circuits only.  Also, a major factor in future games like Breakout (1976) was the introduction of gameplay that didn't require an opponent at all. This is the kind of error that prompts a project like the one you're reading right now.

MY QUICK REVIEW:
There is probably some confusion to the modern gamer why the fuss about Pong. And, in truth, I've often felt that way myself. I look at this simplistic game and wonder how it could possibly have been a hit. I can surmise two reasons: first, a video game was still prety new technology; second, it just boils down to the competitive head-to-head fight it engendered.

Even though we had computer space months before Pong, and we certainly already had a tradition of coin-op arcade games, shooters, gun games, etc. this video thing was still new. These little analog controllers let you control a paddle on a TV screen in a smooth, responsive way. You weren't moving something around in a strictly physical sense, but the feeling was real. So that aspect was captivating.

Yet I believe the real reason for Pong's success was it's head-to-head competitive gameplay. One quarter, two paddles, two players.. and a race to get to 11 or 15 points (DIP switch setting) first and win! It was a skillset you could develop and felt like a new category - the "TV Game". Also, you could play the game with one hand... so the other was free to hold a drink or something. It just seemed to do well because people enjoyed testing out their skill against other people.

After this was introduced we went through a few years of Pong clones everywhere, and then the Pong consoles hit the home market. Eventually there was a bit of a video game crash as the pong craze died off and before the next big thing took off. But there's no doubt Pong's great success was the beginning of making "video" (TV) games a valid and vibrant part of the coin-op scene. Furthermore the "home Pong" system was a breakthrough in home electronics becoming a market segment!

VIDEO: