The above controller concept could be what the NX will be controlled with... or not!

As documented in depth in a recent NeoGAF thread by user Rösti, Nintendo filed a patent in October 2014 for the above U-shaped controller and the patent saw an international filing on September 18, 2015, and publication on April 22, 2016, via WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).

Somewhat reminiscent of the Xbox 360's Wireless Speed Wheel, huh?

Most likely the controller will be applied for fitness games following Nintendo's interest in "quality of life" products. It's not a regular controller either as it boasts an accelerometer, gyrometer, temperature sensor and load sensor. Time to get fit in the 21st century!

A rough English translation of the patent application reads: "The main object of the present invention is to provide a novel training equipment, training system and an input device."

Below are more images of the patent's drawings:

​

More interestingly, the translations refer to "portable terminals" that can apparently be connected with the device to display a screen, exemplified in the image below (and more in the source):

Well this is definitely material for further speculations. Is it for the NX or to add once and for all the U in WiiU? What other applications will it have? And will it actually be released?

SOURCE

 

[The Catboy]

Could they just not?

 

[MarioFanatic64]

Nintendo files millions of patents. Probably so they can claim ownership of the idea if they decide to use it at any point. That doesn't mean it'll be used. This is likely due to all the patent sharks attacking Nintendo over the last few years

 

[KingBlank]

nx just needs a pro controller with a audio jack and switchable analog/digital triggers

 

[Bladexdsl]

I dub thee: Horse U!

 

[KingVamp]

Have you forgotten about the Wiimote? It was a horrible decision because it lacked analogue sticks, analogue triggers, internal battery and not really useful for games that needed a traditional controller. I get that Nintendo was trying to go for "innovation" but dear god, keep it optional.

I guess you are forgetting about the nunchucks.

 

[DesuIsSparta]

I guess you are forgetting about the nunchucks.

There is no reason for core function in games to be sold on a separate device

 

[Abcdfv]

Seriously disgusted by the amount of people who can't even read the first post on this forum.

 

[Pleng]

You reckon? I go into any game shop dealing in second hand stuff around here trying to sell a wheel and they are way overstocked on them, similar story for charity shops, car boot sales and other places I might find electrical junk, which I guess also means under my bed and in my wardrobe. People seem to get them, have a bit of fun and then remember a controller is by far the better method if you want to get down to the serious business of playing a game.

Well for some people there's no such thing as "serious business" when it comes to playing games!

It really depends if you're playing for amusement or high-scores. When I sit down to play a bit of Sega Rally or Daytona, then you're absolutely right in that I'm going to do better when playing with a pad than when using a wheel. I'd much rather use a wheel though as it's far more entertaining.

But... I generally use pads. Why? Because using a wheel is a PITA. A controller you can plug in and go. A wheel you have to have lined up nicely with the monitor, and you need have a table a bit further back to rest on. Playing properly with a wheel just takes up a shit load of space, which people (including me) don't account for when they buy the wheels to begin with. That is probably the main reason you find a lot of them in second hand stores...

 

[FAST6191]

Alignment has never really been an issue for wheels for me and mine. I have also had a few that have wings and go under your legs as well so you can sit on the sofa or a reasonably sized computer chair or something.

The serious business thing was supposed to be a joke of sorts, anyway I suppose it is more that nobody can be bothered to own and store 4 wheels and if you have one wheel user and 3 controller users then the wheel poses a significant handicap. Perhaps not keyboard and mouse vs controller level but more than takes the edge off.
Or if you prefer I have seen kids fight over the colour of controllers but nobody fights over who gets to use the wheel in mario kart, need for speed or whatever other car game that is not gran turismo levels of control needed that the kids are enjoying this week after the first time when they want to try it out. Even single player the only times I ever see anybody use them is for free roam type modes.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

There is no reason for core function in games to be sold on a separate device

It's not exactly a second device if it's sold with the console as part of the controller. If anything it's a controller add-on to give added functionality

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

I guess you are forgetting about the nunchucks.

That's optional and even then you don't have analogue triggers on it.

 

[KingVamp]

There is no reason for core function in games to be sold on a separate device

Multiple uses controller. Some only use the Wiimote. Some use both, but you already knew that.

That's optional and even then you don't have analogue triggers on it.

Just as optional the games that need the nunchucks. My point is, if you are going complain about the controller, complain about the whole thing.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Just as optional the games that need the nunchucks. My point is, if you are going complain about the controller, complain about the whole thing.

The Wiimote is the primary controller whilst the nunchuk is an additional accessory to it.

 

[Veho]

Gamepads are great universal controllers, they're at least "acceptable" in each gaming genre [...] a gamepad will "work" with all of the above.

There's quite a gap between "acceptable" and calling it "*perfectly fine*" / claiming that trying to improve on a dual analog is "solving a problem that isn't there". I would believe that you only meant the shape if you didn't generally balk at any mention of moving away from the dual analog control scheme.

Again, this ridiculous horseshoe magnet design is just a patent application illustration, and this patent application is just one of the hundreds they file each year, so even if this becomes part of the final controller, there's no reason to assume the NX controller will actually look like this.


Regardless, the "default" controller (what the dual analog is today) will change significantly in the upcoming years, and there is nothing you can do about it. Resistance is futile. It is THE FUTURE

 

[Foxi4]

There's quite a gap between "acceptable" and calling it "*perfectly fine*" / claiming that trying to improve on a dual analog is "solving a problem that isn't there". I would believe that you only meant the shape if you didn't generally balk at any mention of moving away from the dual analog control scheme.

Again, this ridiculous horseshoe magnet design is just a patent application illustration, and this patent application is just one of the hundreds they file each year, so even if this becomes part of the final controller, there's no reason to assume the NX controller will actually look like this.


Regardless, the "default" controller (what the dual analog is today) will change significantly in the upcoming years, and there is nothing you can do about it. Resistance is futile. It is THE FUTURE

I absolutely meant the shape, which is why I touched upon the ergonomics angle. When I say "dual analog" or "Dual Shock" I usually mean the modern shape of a gamepad, not the sticks themselves unless that's the context of the conversation or unless I specify that's the case. As for the "future", I'm one of those people who do not entertain the thought of having to strap a TV to my face in order to "immerse" myself (my immersion was, again, perfectly fine when I was 7, playing Castlevania on my 22-inch CRT TV with a mono speaker and a Famiclone hooked up, and not much has changed since then - the line between "game" and "reality" blurs with imagination in place, not with goofy goggles and vibrating didontrolsticks), and I know I'm not alone in that mindset, so I guess we'll see what wins out - the comfort of a couch or the weird innovation. I'll welcome anything that "works better", I don't like innovation for the sake of being different and quirky. As long as something improves gaming, I'm game for it.

 

[Haloman800]

Well this is a new path I had not necessarily expected. This looks like it is going to be a hilarious read so I might have to settle in for this one.

"Property in Bodies"
Sounds like these people need to read some better sci fi if garden of eden is their ideal -- plenty of stuff has full memory at time of death clones as an option, they would not even have to go too much beyond the Atlas Shrugged (1957) stuff and look at things like Dune (1965) for an example (thought I suppose technically the gholas did not appear properly until 1969 in Dune Messiah) and Riverworld (1971) for an entire series almost predicated upon the concept. However this is way off topic and it is not like it is terribly relevant here as we are not in superabundance.

Completely irrelevant and failed attempt at a joke. Not an argument.

Even assuming what is says is correct* then we would have to start from the standpoint that freedom of speech, property rights and I guess individual rights are higher ideals than things that intellectual property law might theoretically protect. For what it is worth those that would try to tell me businesses be people too, son are likely to get a very hostile response but I can at least see some scope here for patents and IP in general to do things.

Businesses aren't people, neither are families, organizations, governments. They are made up of people. This is also not an argument, and has nothing to do with individual property rights. A business may be privately owned by a person, or by many people (who then jointly own the property).

*even if a semantic agreement could be reached then we still have the issue that the courts very much recognise the concepts and apply the law accordingly. A semantic agreement is not going to happen here though as the underlying philosophy/logic espoused there is not one that I or seemingly the governments, businesses, power players.... of the world share.

I'm not arguing the current law; the US government claims IP is a valid concept; I'm arguing that 1. this is false, no one can own an idea, color, or arrangement of words, and 2. The First Amendment, if applied consistently, would invalidate all IP laws, since copyright and patent systems are blatant violations of freedom of speech (they limit what you can say, write, view, etc).

Back on topic (again) they seem to like the term "scarce resources" and I am not sure how else to classify human time and resources that theoretically are used to push forward the state of technology.

That's not an argument.

"they essentially tell someone what they can and can't do with their own property"
Other than some of the things in the weapons, drugs and explosives type world (and even then it is contentious) world then if I can knock it out in my workshop then I can have it. The US approach to genetics (which also forms a lot of the basis for software patents or vice versa) is also highly suspect but that is not enough to write off a concept for me, causes me to seriously consider writing off the US for a lot of things that but that is a different matter. Whether I can sell said workshop product to someone else or the general public is a different matter, likewise whether I can use it as a service could also be part of it (though this might be more the business methods side of things).

You make 2 claims here. #1 is "You can produce anything for private use, as long as you don't sell or give it away", this is false. If I hand write out Twilight, then I can be sued for violating Mrs. Meyers copyright on that arrangement of words. #2 is based on a false assumption, but even if you were allowed to use it for private, but could not sell it; this is still a violation of property rights, since it's limiting what you can do with your property (e.g. it states you can't trade your handwrwitten book for someone else's burned CD, as both items are illegal under arbitrary IP laws)

This isn't even debatable; IP laws are violation of freedom of speech, at least admit this. The only argument you can make in favor of IP laws are utilitarian, as in "even though it violates property rights, it's for the betterment of society as a whole", if you're going down that route, I have other arguments to respond with.

 

[Foxi4]

At which point exactly does IP protection violate freedom of speech? The right to freedom of speech concerns freedom of expression, you cannot be penalized for expressing an opinion, even if it goes against the general opinion (and this only binds government bodies, by the way - individuals are free to discriminate against you in their establishments - an important factoid people often forget about). Intellectual property does not concern opinions, it concerns practical application of ideas, for example the contents of a book or a design of an engine, both of which have an author attached to them. The author's work is not a public good unless the author makes it so - you took no part in the creative process, thus you have no rights to its result.

Following your reasoning, libel shouldn't be a criminal offense - after all, I'm free to say whatever I want, right? Wrong. If I accuse someone of being a peadophile, that accusation has real-life implications for the person in question - I expose that person to harm of all sorts, from monetary (s/he could lose his/her job) harm to endangering their livelyhood (s/he could be shunned by their community or even lynched), not to mention possible prosecution. Libel is illegal because the words we say often times have serious implications, so if I'm making an accusation, I should make sure that I have evidence.

The same rule of thumb apllies to IP protection - by not protecting ideas and designs, you're exposing their owners to loss of profit, which is harmful to them. Not only that, you're depressing the rate at which ideas are even publicized since they come at a huge expense and can be freely usurped at no cost. Your freedom of speech is not violated when you're not allowed to sell a book you haven't written as your own (plagiarism), a book is not an opinion, it's a physical representation of the writer's mental labour. You're free to say whatever you think about the book - that's freedom of speech.

Your whole point hinges on the idea that one cannot claim ownership of an idea, which is patently (pun intended) false - if I come up with an innovative solution to a problem through mental labour, meaning research and development, I have full rights to capitalize on that. The fruits of mental labour in this context are the same as the fruits of physical labour. Working on a song is no different than working on a piece of stone - I as the creator apply my effort into the medium of choice and in the first instance I come up with a song, in the latter I come up with, say, a statue. Those are both mine, even though only one has a physical representation, the other one is just an idea that can be performed.

Long story short, we're working with three very different concepts here - an opinion (expression of emotion or belief on a given subject, which is covered by freedom of speech), statement of fact (true by default and not protected by freedom of speech, hence the example of libel) and an idea. Explaining what an idea is would be dwelling into some mild philosophical territory (read Plato), so let's just define it as a mental representation of a concievable object or solution (a form) which, although intangible, has an express author and thus also ownership.

As a side note, the legal entity of a corporation has a degree of personhood rights, thus it can claim ownership. A business is a collaborative effort of the owner, the shareholders and the employees, so it very much can own property, including intellectual property. The results of a corporation's labour as a whole belong to that corporation, just like a song created by an independent band belongs to that band.

 

[FAST6191]

Completely irrelevant and failed attempt at a joke. Not an argument.

Businesses aren't people, neither are families, organizations, governments. They are made up of people. This is also not an argument, and has nothing to do with individual property rights. A business may be privately owned by a person, or by many people (who then jointly own the property).


I'm not arguing the current law; the US government claims IP is a valid concept; I'm arguing that 1. this is false, no one can own an idea, color, or arrangement of words, and 2. The First Amendment, if applied consistently, would invalidate all IP laws, since copyright and patent systems are blatant violations of freedom of speech (they limit what you can say, write, view, etc).


That's not an argument.


You make 2 claims here. #1 is "You can produce anything for private use, as long as you don't sell or give it away", this is false. If I hand write out Twilight, then I can be sued for violating Mrs. Meyers copyright on that arrangement of words. #2 is based on a false assumption, but even if you were allowed to use it for private, but could not sell it; this is still a violation of property rights, since it's limiting what you can do with your property (e.g. it states you can't trade your handwrwitten book for someone else's burned CD, as both items are illegal under arbitrary IP laws)

This isn't even debatable; IP laws are violation of freedom of speech, at least admit this. The only argument you can make in favor of IP laws are utilitarian, as in "even though it violates property rights, it's for the betterment of society as a whole", if you're going down that route, I have other arguments to respond with.

I never said businesses were people, quite the opposite. It was more detailing the position I find myself (there are those that would tell me businesses are people and thus are afforded certain rights I might find odd to afford them), it was with that in mind that I still questioned the logic espoused in your link.

If we are going to throw current established law out of the window then I invoke magic fairy land law to bring it back in -- we exist within the laws and ignoring them is not a terribly useful thing here. Anyway there are held to be exceptions to first amendment law, the classic example being yelling fire in a crowded theatre, so would this IP lark not form another exception?

How is that not an argument? It makes a claim, I state that if that is the case then this is a potential logical result or valid within the logic of that claim which would invalidate some other things you are saying. A more classical rhetorical technique I do not know. I don't think it would classify as a strawman or anything. It could be invalid but I could not see an obvious failing that would lead it to be thus.

The claims thing was more for patents than copyright (hence the workshop and slant towards building things in it), if it was being applied to copyright then that would be troubling. If the first amendment existed within a vacuum then a strict reading of it would have much IP law see the government disallow certain speech and thus contravene it, it is not within a vacuum and not even close. IP law had kind of existed for the better part of a century before it came in as well, though more interesting things would come later.
You would be right though that my main reasoning for the continued existence of patents and IP law would be for creators to feel it worth the effort of continuing to create. There are some serious issues with the implementation and directions it is going in, especially in the US but nowhere is immune, but the underlying logic is sound. The breaking of freedom of speech or property rights does not even register as a thing that it might be.

 

[ov3rkill]

That illustration reminds me of Earl of Lemongrab.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

That illustration reminds me of Earl of Lemongrab.

? Which one?