Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magnavox Odyssey/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [1].

Magnavox Odyssey edit

Nominator(s): PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third in a series of early video game FACs (Spacewar!, Computer Space), here we have the Odyssey, the first video game console. Released in 1972 after 6 years of development and 21 years after Ralph Baer first had the idea, it had the good fortune to come out not only the year after Computer Space proved arcade video games could be a thing, but only a couple months before Pong, allowing for a mutual sales growth for both of them due to how similar Pong and the Odyssey's Table Tennis were. Though, as 20 years and US$100 million of lawsuits in Magnavox's favor proved, that wasn't exactly a coincidence. Calling one of Baer's patents for the console "the pioneering patent of the video game art", as a judge did, is frankly pushing it, and calling him the father of video games requires ignoring a lot of earlier video game history, but it's safe to say that his work on the Odyssey launched the entire concept of video games in the home before any other company had even considered the idea. It draws a line and three dots, and not much else, but the Odyssey is one of the first parts of the multi-billion dollar video game industry. I originally wrote this article in 2016, but worked it up to bring to FAC now due to better sources only recently coming out. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Spicy

Quite a well-written article. Speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's not particularly interested in video games, I found this a very accessible and enjoyable read. Comments below.

Not a full image review, but I have a couple of concerns about the images:

(I'm not an expert on image copyright, though, so would appreciate feedback from more experienced image reviewers).
  • I'll hold off on a full image review before removing the two images, though I understand your point and won't argue it. I disagree on the final point- a digital image representing the visual elements is very different from the fuzzy analog shapes that would have been shown on a television in 1972, and I think that an actual picture of a CRT television showing a game is more relevant than a clean digital reproduction, even if it's fair use. I appreciate your point that it may still be free use- I'm not sure, I was playing it safe since it was a crop of someone else's television set. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the white dots and lines are simple enough to be free use. But then you should take a free use picture of the TV and game, and not rely on an uncredited internet image. Also consider CRT emulators. - hahnchen 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose:

  • It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white, with differing behavior for the dots depending on the game played, and with no sound capabilities. - it seems a little jarring to introduce the final part of the sentence with “and”, because it’s talking about what the console can't do, while the sentence opens by talking about what it's capable of
  • The Odyssey console came packaged with dice, paper money, and other board game paraphernalia to go along with the games” - “go along with” seems informal; what about something like “to accompany the games”?
  • The idea for a video game console was thought up by Baer in August 1966 - “thought up” also seems informal, would replace this with “conceived” or similar
  • The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used by different games to reset individual elements - is “by different games” necessary?
  • The games include plastic overlays which stick to the television via static cling, to create visuals for the game - do we need "for the game"? Seems like this is implied
  • Different games that use the same game card can have different overlays - the first “different” seems unnecessary, and in fact confusing, since the “different games” are actually the same things with different overlays
  • and demonstrated it for months prior to Magnavox dealerships and media. - seems like there’s something missing here? “prior to its appearance in Magnavox dealerships…” maybe? (have not read the sources so just guessing at what might be meant here)
  • Magnavox won more than US$100 million in the various patent lawsuits and settlements involving the Odyssey related patents - is it necessary to specify “patent lawsuits” when you later say "involving the Odyssey related patents"?
  • Done; done; done; tried to adjust to make it more clear that what it resets depends on the game; done; done; tweaked (it was demonstrated to the dealerships + media over that summer); Done. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Thanks for the review! Responded below both sections. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy: I've now removed the two images you raised concerns about and replaced the third with your suggestion, as the consensus seems to agree with you on that, so I believe I've now addressed all of your points. --PresN 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now that the image issues have been resolved & the article has been reviewed by people knowledgeable in the subject area I am happy to support. Just want to add that I think you'd have a valid fair use claim for the image of the overlays, since it's an integral part of the gameplay and there is no free alternative. Spicy (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Indrian
  • "It was developed by a small team led by Ralph H. Baer at Sanders Associates and released by Magnavox in the United States in September 1972 and overseas the following year." - I know we do not want to get too complex in the lead, but this is not quite accurate. Baer and his team at Sanders developed the internal hardware, but a console is more than that. The casing, the controllers, the circuit cards, the overlays and other pack-in materials, etc. were developed at Magnavox or at other partners of Magnavox. So to say that Baer developed the console is misleading.
  • Reworded a bit to not imply that Baer et. al. did literally everything
  • I made an additional tweak to this as well. I just want to make sure the lead does not leave the impression that design work was finished when Magnavox licensed it. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white" - It can also display one line of varying height.
  • Added
  • "Players place plastic overlays on the screen to create visuals" - Nitpicky again, but placing the overlays is not an act of "creation" by the players, which implies they are building something out of parts or whatnot.
  • Tweaked (display)
  • I tweaked this a little more. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The games do not make sounds or track scores." - Should probably refer to the system itself here as opposed to the games?
  • Done
  • "Baer's patents for the system and the games" - More nits to pick. One of the important patents was Baer's, but the critical patent relating to machine-controlled objects changing vectors belonged to Bill Rusch.
  • Well, I only discuss the '480 and '285 patents in an attempt to streamline it, though you're right that '285 is awarded to several of them, and the one I don't discuss was to Rusch. Reworded.
  • The '285 patent is not the proper patent to focus on. See the detailed explanation further down the list. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The release of the Odyssey marked the end of the early history of video games, the beginning of the first generation of video game consoles, and the rise of the commercial video game industry." - This is original research based on how Wikipedia organizes information rather than how scholars at large necessarily do. And it cannot really be considered the start of the rise of the commercial industry when Computer Space predated it by a year.
  • Hmm, reworded- I don't want to lose the concept, as I think it's important to the lay reader to see that while it's not literally the first commercial video game, when it launched there was only Computer Space and I guess its '"Star Trek clone, which relatively few people ever played, and by a few months after it launched between it and Pong there was beginning to be an "industry", or at least the idea that commercial video games were possible.
  • Its a little better, but I am still not completely satisfied. The problem is that "early history of video games" is a Wikipedia organizational concept. I know you want to get that article name in the lead somehow, but its not really accurate to say that the Odyssey was transitioning out of anything. Its creators did not see it as some kind of transition in computer games. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, alright, redone in the lede and legacy sections. I should just stop trying to shoehorn in these links with awkward phrasings; I really do it just to push readers to check out the rest of semi-related history but it's a stretch here.
  • "which allows the player to switch the television input between the Odyssey and the regular television input cable, and presents itself like a television channel." - It is probably worth mentioning that the Odyssey tuned to Channels 3 or 4 specifically, and that this became a video game industry standard.
  • Eh, added; I know it became a standard, but as the 'first' quite a lot of it became a 'standard' for at least a while, and the 3/4 thing stuck partially because most regions didn't have strong tv channels on both of those, so it's possible that even if the Odyssey had never existed, the new 'first' console would have done the same.
  • "In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and game boards much like a traditional board game." - I do not believe the Odyssey came with any game boards. The only game that used a board, Invasion, was sold separately. On the flip side, it did ship with card decks, which are not mentioned here.
  • Replaced
  • "While the commercial video game industry did not yet exist at that point, the very first electronic computer games had been developed at the start of the 1950s, and by 1966 several early mainframe games had been developed for mainframe computers, which were typically only found in large academic or research institutions." - All true, but it really has nothing to do with Baer and his brainstorm and breaks up this material in an unhelpful way.
  • Condensed, rewrote, and moved to the end of the paragraph so as not to break up the thought as it definitely got away from me there, but I do want something like it early in the development section- as a million shoddy articles have shown, there's a common conception that Baer "invented video games", but what he invented in 1966 was the video game console and the ability to play a video game in your home- whether he knew it or not, by 1966 "video games" had existed for years, they just weren't commercial or available.
  • This works much better at the end of the paragraph. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the time he finished it he was referring to it as Channel LP, short for 'let's play'" - This is a common misreading of the material. The hardware was never called "Channel LP." He called the signal frequency on which the hardware would transmit data to the television "Channel LP."
  • Fixed
  • "Baer instead commandeered an empty room" - Its all nitpicks today. I don't think Baer ever described commandeering a room at this point, just a technician. I think the technician just worked wherever he normally worked. The dedicated space would come later.
  • He did, actually, I don't recall which interview with him it was- he oversaw a group of ~500 of engineers/technicians (cite: Smith 143) in a fairly large space, and he had Tremblay work in a room that was far away from the main hallway so that he wouldn't get questions about it before he had something to show. "Commandeered" is maybe a bit strong- it's not like he needed to ask permission to use that room, it's just that he didn't go out of his way to tell anyone what the project in there was.
  • I mean, yeah the guy had to work somewhere. My confusion was just that he later secured an official project room that he kept secret. But I agree there is no need for a change here. Consider this struck. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baer, meanwhile, collaborated with engineer Bill Rusch on the design of the console, including developing the basis of many games for the system." - This does not quite capture the relationship here. Rusch was not a design partner on anything at this point, but they did brainstorm some game ideas together.
  • Hmm, yeah, I'm combining the Feb-May 1967 discussions with the post-August development there. Fixed.
  • "by coming up with a way to display three spots on the screen at once" - Just as important was making one of the dots machine-controlled. Earlier dots were only movable by the players.
  • Fixed.
  • "Vice President of Marketing Gerry Martin" - He was VP of Planning for Console Products, not VP of Marketing.
  • Gah, that's clear in both Smith and Tristan, I don't know where that snuck in.
  • George Kent should get a shout-out. We don't know anything about him but his name, but he led the Magnavox team that transformed the Brown Box into the Odyssey.
  • May as well, done.
  • "The games for the system were designed by Ron Bradford and Steve Lehner" - Its probably worth noting that these were outside contractors working via Bradford/Cout Design, a firm that had done work for Magnavox's ad agency in the past.
  • Namedropped the firm, though it's previous history with Magnavox seems a little too much
  • I feel like the article skips over a lot of important details between Baer's design of the system and the September retail launch. These include: conducting customer surveys in California and Michigan, deciding to break the system out of the Color TV Division and assigning it its own product planner, the initial launch plans in terms of how many to produce and where they would be sold (geographic areas, not the dealer exclusivity part, which is covered) and how those changed over time, the official unveiling at Tavern on the Green in May 1972, and the roadshow that followed over the next few months. Some of these things are mentioned in passing, but I think it can all be fleshed out a little for comprehensiveness. All of this info can be sourced to either Baer or Smith.
  • Yeah, this and the previous two points are things that I tried to flense away to avoid bogging down the reader with small details; adding them back in.
  • I think you have a decent balance now of getting some info in without weighing the article down. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the company hoped that as the first such product" - The first what? I realize its the first home video game, but the article has not actually connected the dots here.
  • Now connected earlier, and connected here again since it's a ways later
  • "Other sources have stated that dealers misled customers to sell more televisions" - I think its more accurate to say that other sources state that dealers may have been misleading. There is not proof, just reasonable speculation.
  • Yeah, that's fair.
  • I think a little fleshing out is needed on the post-launch period as well, including Don Emry producing new games and Bob Fritsche proposing several extensions of the line that were rejected. Its probably also worth noting that, per Smith, the system was discontinued and replaced with the TTL-based 100 and 200 largely due to manufacturing costs. Again, I know this is touched on briefly in the legacy section, but its probably better served being fleshed out and moved into the narrative around the performance of the system in 1973-75.
  • Expanded both the Reception and Legacy sections a bit with this- Legacy for plans made for the Odyssey itself (even if they didn't happen), and Legacy for the 100/200 bits.
  • "no other true home video consoles were produced until the 1976" - They are all video game consoles, putting "true" on there feels like OR.
  • Reworked to avoid that word- there's a real distinction to be made between a console that only plays what it comes with and a console that can play games created for it after release, but that was a clumsy way to do it
  • "saw a demonstration of the Odyssey at a dealership" - The demonstration was at a hotel. It was part of the roadshow Magnavox did between May and September
  • Fixed
  • "The root of the conflict was a pair of patents by Baer" - As above, one by Baer and one by Rusch.
  • Reworded
  • So there are a lot of patents that flew back and forth, which I think is where the confusion here lies. There are some patents with Baer's name, some with all three names, and some with just Bill Rusch's name. The two patents that were actually litigated and ruled upon in multiple cases were the '480 patent (US3728480) and the '507 patent (USRE28507E). The '507 patent is the one that secured Magnavox most of its judgments, because the '480 patent was more conceptual and the '507 patent was concrete. This was the big patent in the original suit decided in 1977; this was the patent that Activision fought literally to the death (or at least bankruptcy), and this was the patent that Nintendo tried to invalidate (alongside a reissue of the '480 patent, U.S. Patent No. Re 32,305, just to confuse the issue even more). While the patent you are currently citing, US3659285A, is quite similar to the '507 patent, its the wrong patent because '507 superseded it. And '507 is Rusch's alone. So we still need a little work on this one. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, learning a lot about patents here- specifically, I saw a mention of a '284 patent somewhere, but then not again so I didn't include it. RE'507 is, as it turns out, the reissue of '284 (US3659284), but there's no easy linking in either the espace or google patents sites- you have to look at the actual patent, where it's written on the first page, and the fact that it's a reissue is why it has an application date in 1974- the original was in 1969. And now that I'm specifically looking for it, I see Smith referring to the '507 patent as the other important one besides '480, just as you say here. Good catch, thanks! Fixed, I hope.


On the whole, I think there is a lot of good information in here, but I believe we are still a little short of meeting the comprehensiveness FAC criteria. We are not that far off though, so I can see myself supporting before the end of the nomination period. In addition to mining Baer and Smith a little more, I would recommend sourcing DP's interview with Don Emry, which it appears has only been referenced indirectly through other sources that used pieces of it. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all but the more open-ended post-launch bullet point, which I'll sort out separately. Thanks so much for reviewing this in such depth! --PresN 03:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indrian: Okay, responded to the last one. I haven't used Emry's interview- while it's a good interview with some useful bits, I'm not confident that I can justify DigitPress as a source in this FAC, even if Smith used it as a source- it looks like an interesting site/forum, but while I'm personally lenient when it comes to interviews it's hard to say it's an RS. I actually culled a couple Baer interviews just before nominating for the same reason- small hobby sites are hard to swing. --PresN 02:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I don't think anything critical has been missed in the Emry interview, so that's fine, but I don't see a reliability issue. The interview subject is the source of the content, not the hobby site, and Emry is a reliable source on things that happened at Magnavox while he was there. The only time the reliability of the site would be in question would be if there was reason to believe the interview itself was a forgery. Anyway, you have cleared up nearly all of the issues I had with the article. Two more still need some attention, but we are getting close. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indrian: Okay, fixed the last two, I hope. --PresN 02:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great! Thank you for all your hard work on the article! Indrian (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Joe

Should get to this soon. JOEBRO64 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not terribly familiar with console articles, I'm doing a prose review. Starting with the lede and design:

  • I'd add a "(1972)" after Pong in the lede.
  • "The controllers, which are designed to sit on a flat surface..."
  • "Different games direct the player to adjust the dials to different positions, for example to change such as changing the center line of a tennis game into the side wall of a handball game." I think it flows a bit better this way.

That's all for now. I should have more time later this week for a full review, but it's looking great so far. JOEBRO64 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • These three done in advance of the full review. --PresN 14:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I looked through the rest of the article and nothing glaring stood out to me. The only comment I have is on the Reception section. Do you think it'd be better to retitle it "Sales"? That seems to be the main focus. Otherwise I'm ready to support. JOEBRO64 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support by David Fuchs

Yell at me if there's nothing here by the beginning of next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: poke. --PresN 02:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is in pretty good shape, and there are only a few issues I have before supporting.

  • General and prose:
    • Overall I think the article meets criteria with regards to layout and structure; it covers the overall parts of the topic appropriately, and from my look into sources I didn't see anything that seemed missing.
    • The prose still needs a bit of work, primarily in reducing wordier sentences. Even simple stuff like Loral did not decide to pursue the idea to Loral did not pursue the idea would help.
      • I've tried to cut some of the wordiness while doing your and Masem's comments, though I have a marked tendency towards more elaborate sentences and I don't know if it's enough.
  • Images:
    • I agree with Hahnchen above about File:Magnavox-Color-Screen-Overlays.jpg and File:Magnavox-Odyssey-Accessories.jpg; the use of original art seems too high to meet public domain thresholds to me. Likewise, while I understand why you want to use an example of what the gameplay "actually" looked like with File:Magnavox odyssey gameplay.jpg, I don't think the fair use rationale is strong enough; it could be replaced by a free alternative that isn't as good, but the article isn't significantly harmed by its loss.
      • Alright, well, there seems to be a consensus on that, so replacing/removing images.
  • References:
    • Referencing schema generally seems internally consistent. Doesn't appear to have issues with excessive reliance on single sources, or reliance on primary sources.
    • I did spot one or two places where it looks like the publisher should be italicized (Diehard GameFan,
      • Moved publisher to website; which other one did you think should be italicized?
      • Dunno if I had another one, but I don't see further issues on revisiting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • THE USPTO filings seem like they're missing publisher information, and are formatting differently with regards to author location, etc.
      • That's just the way {{Cite patent}} renders, unfortunately- it doesn't seem to match the general CS1 pattern. I'm... hesitent to haul off and design my own version of cite patent, or make up a new format with bare text, but I can if you insist.
        • No, that's fine. Might be something to bring up at cite patent.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, and 25.
      • Ref 2 is used to cite the following passage: The controllers, designed to sit on a flat surface, contain one button marked Reset on the top of the controller and three knobs: one on the right side of the controller, and two on the left with one extending from the other. The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used to reset individual elements depending on the game, such as making a player's dot visible after it is turned off during a game. The system can be powered by six C batteries, which were included. An optional AC power supply was sold separately. The Odyssey lacks sound capability and can only display monochrome white shapes on a blank black screen. However the source does not include much of that info.
        • Okay, found it- there's no way I just made up something so specific as "6 C batteries", but completely losing a reference is unfortunately in character. That whole thing is from a PC World article, now added.
      • Ref 4 is used to cite In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and card decks much like a traditional board game—while the ref mentions these items, it doesn't directly compare them to an analog board game.
        • That sentence has drifted over the course of this FAC; removed that comparison.
      • Ref 6 and 7 are used to cite {[xt|and the next morning wrote up a four-page proposal for a US$20 "game box" that would plug into a television screen and play games on it.}} I don't have access to 6, but 7 gives "perhaps, twenty-five dollars at retail", rather than $20.
        • The quote from ref 6 (Donovan p. 11) is "The next morning he set about writing a four-page proposal setting out his ideas for a $19.95 game-playing device that would plug into a TV set.". Since they contradict, I'll defer to Baer and change it.
      • Ref 3 and 21 are used to cite the Odyssey being a financial disappointment, but I'd note that several other sources used in the article (c.f. [2] specifically push back on that summation, so it might be worth including those takes.)
        • The article doesn't call it a "financial disappointment", though, it says "the Odyssey is not generally considered a major commercial success", and the VGHF article doesn't contradict that- it counters the narrative that it was a flop due to the 1972 overproduction, but does not go so far as to declare it a major success. And it wasn't, by all indicators- they cancelled most of the planned extra games, decided not to make further versions or accessories, and cancelled production within 3 years when inflation overtook the profit margin. It sold well enough that "flop" would be wrong, though you could argue about calling it a "disappointment" as the interview Indrian wanted me to add pretty explicitly said Magnavox felt that way, but "not a major commercial success" is pretty on the nose, I think.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Responded inline; thanks for reviewing and doing a source review! --PresN 04:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will take another look at the article this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did a minor copyedit, supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Masem

I am a VG editor so I am biased here but also well aware of this area having done a lot of work in this early history area recently.

  • "while doing so, Baer claims he had the idea to build something into a television set..." shouldn't this be past tense (particular with Baer now passed away?)
  • Fixed 2 places that implied present tense
  • "As a "game box" had little to do with the typical military contracts Sanders worked on, rather than bring the idea to his bosses Baer instead picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him." I'd flip the back part of this sentence around, eg "...worked on, Baer picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him rather than bring the idea to his bosses." (two "flipped" phrasings here , just sorting them out better).
  • Flipped
  • You may want to date the Brown Box prototype image since due to how you have images, its displayed a bit earlier than its discussed. Since you have the text well dated, stating in the caption that that prototype is from 1969 preps the reader that they aren't seeing the early prototypes being discussed.
  • Done
  • In the dev section you want want to briefly mention the patenting of the system which they did before seeking a manufacturing partner. Obviously you seek more on these later, but I think alluding to patenting in the timeline (as it would have been standard practice then) helps to show this earlier.
  • Done
  • In the Legacy section it is probably worthwhile to briefly note the connect to the Color TV-Game line from Nintendo since some of these were developed under license from Magnavox based on their later-generation Odyssey's. (see [3] if you need a ref).
  • I feel like it's getting far afield for this article to call out specific licensees of later Odyssey dedicated consoles, as this article is about the original Odyssey only, not the 100+ line.
  • In discussing the recognition Baer got, probably should also add how he is recognized as the "father of video games" or "father of home video games" (depending on which side one takes).
  • Added
  • Minor nit but while Bushnell is THE name for Atari, not including Ted Dabney at least once is a bit of a oversight. But it is Bushnell's story about the lawsuits over Pong/Odyssey so Dabney only needs a brief mention. Eg "Inspired, when he quit Nutting to start his own company, Atari, with Ted Dabney, he assigned..." would be sufficient.
  • Good point, added
  • Date Pong 's release in the Lawsuit section
  • Done
  • Reading on the lawsuit, mentioning the patents earlier in the Dev section might help the flow here. I don't know if you need to establish what the patents were in the Dev or this Lawsuit section, I feel they would fit better in Dev , and then that description doesn't break the flow in the Lawsuit section, but it could go either way.
  • Hmm, I think it's better to leave it here- as per the discussion above, there are other patents beyond those two, those are just the ones that were the basis for the lawsuits, so it'd be awkward to describe only a couple of patents in the dev section without explaining the context why those were more important for a couple sections. I do now mention that patents were filed in the dev section, as per above.
  • I believe (Based on what I researched over for video game clone that the Atari-Magnavox settlement also gave Atari perpetual licenses to the Baer patents, which was sorta critical for Atari to make the home versions of Pong. (based on "They Create Worlds", here [4]) This was something not afforded the others involved in the lawsuit (which were seen to judgement).
  • I think that is getting in the weeds a bit, and I'm not entirely sure the implication is true- specifically, while the settlement may have included that Atari bought a permanent license, there were a ton of Pong clones, so all the other manufacturers either bought limited or perpetual licenses themselves (and figuring out which was which isn't doable), and actually many of the lawsuits besides Atari were also settled and Smith doesn't specify their terms. It also implies that Atari got a better deal than others due to settling- which is an urban legend that isn't true (though this article used to say so as well), they arguably got a worse deal with the "Magnavox gets access to all their technology for a year" thing.

There's something else related to the lawsuit (on its importance to IP and video games) I could have sworn we had somewhere but I can't find it, but otherwise

  • Well, let me know if you remember it.

Also complete happenstance in trying to find a source, I came upon this article from the Video Game History Foundation on the advertising used for the Odyssey: [5] Yes, non-frees, but one could easily be justified, and also described the font used. --Masem (t) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use that as ref 16; I'm not actually convinced that I could use them as the article does not go into detail about the advertising for the console. I'll be replacing some images in a bit per Fuchs' review, so maybe, though. I don't think that the packaging/ads used a tweaked version of the "Moore Computer" font is non-trivial, that level of packaging detail isn't usually something we cover, as interesting as it is.
@Masem: Thanks for reviewing! Replied inline. --PresN 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think all my points were fairly addressed, the latter ones were more optional/thoughts, and as I said, if I can relocate this source that put the weight on the Magnavox suit as critical, I'll let you know or add it myself. --Masem (t) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Sorry to bug; can you explicitly support if you're satisfied? I don't want the coordinators to miss it. --PresN 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am satisfied with the adjustments. --Masem (t) 04:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do this when the reviewer hasn't explicitly supported promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, being bold and putting a bolded Support here then, since that's the magic word that the nominations viewer script uses when counting. --PresN 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Can you explicitly use the magic bold word support? Or not if you don't want to, but as per above it has to be you and words to the same effect don't count. --PresN 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC.---Masem (t) 14:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference concern Support by Lazman321 edit

I am concerned about citation 3. The website is managed by a librarian who researches video game history as a hobby. The website is powered by WordPress, making the website self-published. Despite being self-published, the citation is the most used citation in the article, being used 11 times. Maybe I am worrying too much. What do you guys think, should this citation be kept, or should it be removed and either replaced by better sources or the statements that the citation supports be removed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well, but the author of the Wordpress blog has published a book on video game history through a reputable academic publisher (CRC Press), so I believe it qualifies as a reliable source according to the guidance at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Spicy (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reference is a website containing research notes as he was writing the book; the book itself is used extensively as a source in the article, as it's a reputably published book and the the highest quality book yet written about the time period in video game history. Most of the notes made it into the book, so I cite that preferably, but some specific details (exact details of the internals/controls of the console, descriptions of all of the games, etc.) did not. It should be fine as a source due to the book; in fact the reason I waited years after I got this article to GA before bringing it to FAC was that I was waiting on the book to be published. --PresN 02:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this article is featured article status. I was able to read throughout the entire article and the details presented in an understandable way, along with the reliable sources used throughout and the amount of effort that was put into the article makes this a great article and one that deserves to be a Featured article. Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss edit

I think the article looks amazing and is definitely ready for the gold star! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

We have a good amount of commentary but no support for promotion after almost a month open. I'm willing to keep it open for a few more days so see if we will have any significant movement, but otherwise it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Indrian, TheJoebro64, and David Fuchs: to return. --PresN 18:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am almost ready to support. Just a couple things left. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't forgotten, don't worry! Just been extremely busy IRL. I'm going to make a real effort to finish this by the end of the week. JOEBRO64 23:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Magnavox_Odyssey/archive1&oldid=1138466232"