Happy 60th birthday, video games. Thank William Higinbotham for your misspent evenings

Tennis for Two prepares to collect its bus pass

The forerunner of today's video games celebrated its 60th birthday last week as the anniversary of William Higinbotham's Tennis for Two rolled around.

Tennis for Two was built by Higinbotham as a way of injecting a bit of life into the somewhat non-interactive nature of US-based Brookhaven National Laboratory's annual exhibition. It consisted of two controllers attached to an analogue computer and an oscilloscope showing two lines representing a tennis court and net, and a bright dot to represent the ball.

Each player had a controller with a button to swing an invisible racquet and a dial to adjust the angle, and goodness, it blew the minds of the attendees of the exhibition. Hundreds queued to have a go on the wonder-device.

The "brain" of the game was an analogue computer, the Donner Model 30, which came with an instruction manual describing how to simulate trajectories and bouncing on the cathode ray tube of an oscilloscope. It was a short intellectual hop for Higinbotham to translate this into a tennis game. Advances in transistors allowed the display of the ball, net and tennis court (or rather, dot, short vertical line and long horizontal line) and, with the help of an assistant, the game was put together in three weeks.

A follow-up in 1959 featured a larger screen and adjustable gravity before the device was eventually put away and forgotten. Higinbotham reflected that perhaps a patent might have been a good idea as the likes of Pong appeared and the money began to roll in. However, as his employer, any licensing cash would have headed the government's way.

There continues to be controversy as to whether this was the very first video game. Ten years earlier, physicists at DuMont Laboratories had come up with game where a player twiddled knobs to make a dot reach a plastic target stuck on a screen in the snappily titled "Cathode-ray tube amusement device". The lack of computer involvement pretty much rules it out, however.

1951's Nimrod computer was able to play the strategy game Nim, but made do with lights rather than a cathode ray tube. 1952 brought OXO, developed by Alexander Douglas at the University of Cambridge on the Electronic Delay Storage Automatic Calculator (EDSAC), which used a cathode ray tube to show the current state of the game, albeit in a static form.

60 years on, it is Tennis for Two, a game created purely to entertain, that would be the most familiar to today's players with its controllers and moving imagery (even without the jiggly bits of today's entertainment). For his part, Higinbotham, who went on to be the first chair of the Federation of American Scientists, said of the game: "It might liven up the place to have a game that people could play, and which would convey the message that our scientific endeavors have relevance for society." As for how things turned out, Higinbotham observed: "Whether or not inventing video games is something to be proud of is another matter."

A reconstructed Tennis for Two was exhibited at the National Museum of Play in Rochester, New York, and the orginal schematics for making the thing still exist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. ®


Interestingly, the godfather of video gaming was also on the team that produced electronics for the first atomic bomb, but Higinbotham would go on to become a major voice in the nonproliferation movement. Hopefully, nuke killstreaks remain limited to video games for the foreseeable future.

Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022