Talk:Computer Space

message: "it is generally regarded as the first coin-op video game." Is it? I thought that would be Pong.
--Furrykef 23:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Galaxy Game does predate Computer Space, but not my much. I have added a note in the Trivia section, although perhaps it should be more prominant? Maury 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Galaxy Game.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First?

message: Pages that mention computerspace uses a 13" monitor include  .  Pages that mention 15" include .  Does anybody know better than that?  There's a manual for the unit posted at KLOV , but I can't find anything relevant there, though it's very difficult to search through.  --Interiot 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  13" or 15" monitor? 

message: I have played at least one version of this game, called Star Trek like the "bootleg" arcade version mentioned in the article, but it was a program for a personal computer, using ASCII graphics. B7T (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek for PC? 

message: Some infomation with videos at , which is listed in External Links seems to not quite match the article. Specifically the black-to-white change, and the scoring after 9 becoming 0. Someone with more expert knowledge than me should address this. Donimo (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Info at an External Link 

message: Why the lines A unit being used as a working prop and actual game play can be seen near the beginning of the original releases of the movie Soylent Green. A young lady is seen playing the game in her apartment and thanking her sugar daddy for the gift are "non-notable"? The famous appearence  of the unit of Computer Space in a worldwide known cult movie why shouldn't be notable? And why instead the appearence in an obscure TV show should? --217.203.143.179 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it doesn't meet the video game Pop Culture guidelines for notability.  Something appearing briefly in the background, and that could be any video game, is considered not notable.  Something that is a regular part of a show, and in this case an integral part of the episode is. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Non notable per guidelines"?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Computer Space. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160402143638/http://ataribook.com/book/nolan-digging-spacewar/ to http://ataribook.com/book/nolan-digging-spacewar/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: If the opening of the article is going to make specific claims, like "it was the first arcade video game as well as the first commercially available video game" and "possibly the first video game to spread to multiple computer installations", then those assertions need a citation. It does not matter if the claim is made in the introduction or the body. Once something specific is asserted, then it needs a citation.
The second claim of "possibly the first video game to spread to multiple computer installations" is especially dubious. It sounds a lot like the author's opinion or wishful thinking to me.
*You are wrong and this article passed a full FA review in this state because a bunch of editors who know Wikipedia policy inside and out were fine with it.  I would point you to WP:Lead for more.  To summarize though, while citations are absolutely present in a lead sometimes, they are generally not necessary for info unlikely to be controversial or challenged unless that info is not cited anywhere else in the article. Everything of note found in the lead is cited to a source in the body and none of it is controversial to anyone with a solid grasp of the subject matter.
:As for this so-called “dubious” Spacewar claim, I grant you that a chess experiment or two may have been shared around if one wants to count AIs trained to play a game as “games,” and it’s certainly possible there is some primordial program that has yet to be discovered, but the very few known games created in the 1950s were all pretty much built for unique hardware and did not travel. The “possibly” in the statement takes into account that something else might have snuck out first, but anything that did was irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.  Spacewar is the first game that mattered that spread beyond its original confines, and that is really all the article and the source it is citing to are trying to convey. Indrian (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific claims need citations 

message: The current article claims "ultimately 1,300–1,500 units" sold, however a 2001 New York Times article gives a sales figure of 2,000 units. That said, while I don't have access to the source "They Create Worlds" used for the current figure, I'm inclined to believe that a video game historian may give a more accurate figure then one given in a retrospective news article. Basically I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done, but figured I'd note it here. --Mbrickn (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to my copy of They Create Worlds, but TCW is just quoting Nolan Bushnell for the 1300-1500 figure. Bushnell was well known for exaggerating, so if it had actually sold 2000, I expect he would have said a number of at least that, not misremember a lower one. It also says, in addition to the cited Benj Edwards source, that the game had an initial production run of 1500, and nothing ever says that they had a second run (since the first one didn't sell out- they sold 1000 by the spring, and had to push distributors to get more sold). I don't know where the NYT got the 2000 number, but it doesn't match the other sources we have. --PresN 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. In that case I trust the existing figures more. Thanks for your help! Mbrickn (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy for Units Sold