Maybe I just don't know that much about people in the industry, but I chuckled when I noticed this was an article about a touch screen penned by "Jon Fingas."
Man, how am I going to not get fingerprints all over that screen.
Very thin gloves? :-P
Yeah fingerprints sound like it will still be an issue with gloss and glare though, Especially if the rumors are true... But The NX is shaping up to be Quite Exciting!
For others worried about Gimmicky Touch Controls I dont think the ABXY Buttons and thumbsticks are going anywhere.
I also dont think its necessarily the "Touch Screen" Aspect that they are pressing as the important feature that they want to ensure a patent here for thier next venture, I believe it is the Backlit Screen covering the entire controller as a visual Interactive Overlay (With holes through the screen for Buttons Joysticks etc.) and just so happens to ALSO be touch screen.
Rumor is that they have been working with Sharp on Utilizing their FREE FORM LCD Tech.
Very Exciting as the Screen can be Cut and Shaped to any specification!
What happened to phones? They went from flip phones with buttons to smartphones with swipe screens. And cell phone sales are the best they've ever been.
I am another one who held out with a phone with physical keyboard for as long as possible Just like I wouldn't consider playing most NES games on my touch only phone, I wouldn't consider buying a gamepad with touch only buttons. Some types of games work fine with no feedback, but it also rules out many other types.
They are clearly showing (Demonstrating as pictured) Holes through the Touch Screen for 2 Analog Joysticks and even 1 Button on the Sketch up.
Again this is only a rough design on a patent. (Meant not to leak the final concept to conpetitors) meaning that Obviously more buttons can be applied to the final product but just a general Idea of how the device will function.
One picture shows flames over the thumbsticks like a reaction to being burned by what looks like a Giant Iquana Attacking you. Again this Does not mean that the next game will feature a Giant Iquana. lol
But I still cant stop thinking about Leon from star fox. and the Snow Bros.
I wish they would just make a system with current hardware and invest in some serious titles for it so they can legitimately compete in the market. Create a massive and outstanding library of fun stuff that spans atleast a decade. Instead we get a new gimmick every 5 years, using hardware from the previous decade, and get shitty libraries. I get that the 30+ crowed isnt the target market, but come on. I have passed on a WiiU since it came out because there just isnt anything great on there that I cant get for my PS3, and none of the original titles are mind blowing enough for me to invest 300+ on a system that Nintendo seems to have moved away from already.
I was all ready to take the plunge for Star Fox and Zelda, but who knows what they will do with those now. It sucks because I really want a WiiU until I go to the game section and there is nothing there worth a damn. There are some massive AAA games that have been driving the market over the last decade, none of which are on a Nintendo console. Its a shame because I think a lot of the AAA titles that have come out could really benifit from the WiiU's unique controller.
Guys, I seriously doubt Nintendo will EVER make a console to go toe to toe with MS and Sony. That is not their style anymore, let's be realistic here. Besides, they'd get absolutely slaughtered by Sony and Microsoft anyway. Their online system is a joke at this stage. And if you want to build a technological powerhouse of a system to compete with MS / Sony, you'd need your FPS, Sports games and online titles. That would be the death of the company.
Instead, they have carved out their niche to be a complimentary console, instead of a direct substitute. Do something innovative and unique, price around 50-60% of the MS / Sony console and give people a reason to buy both. That is what they have been doing and that is what they will continue to do. It is actually a perfect business model for them... the Wii was a mega hit, the Wii U was mediocre and hopefully the next generation is somewhere in between.
Guys, I seriously doubt Nintendo will EVER make a console to go toe to toe with MS and Sony. That is not their style anymore, let's be realistic here. Besides, they'd get absolutely slaughtered by Sony and Microsoft anyway. Their online system is a joke at this stage. And if you want to build a technological powerhouse of a system to compete with MS / Sony, you'd need your FPS, Sports games and online titles. That would be the death of the company.
Instead, they have carved out their niche to be a complimentary console, instead of a direct substitute. Do something innovative and unique, price around 50-60% of the MS / Sony console and give people a reason to buy both. That is what they have been doing and that is what they will continue to do. It is actually a perfect business model for them... the Wii was a mega hit, the Wii U was mediocre and hopefully the next generation is somewhere in between.
I dont know where youre buying stuff at, but the WiiU is the same price as the PS4 and Xbone.
If you want to be mediocre, thats fine. Mediocre doesnt last though, just ask Sega. Then again, Nintendo system have been pretty mediocre since the N64 came out, and its worked for them. Just seems lame though, because there are more people out there like me that have no reason to buy a WiiU then there are people who jump on the system because its a Nintendo item.
I honestly want to see what the final product looks like. I own/owned every Nintendo home console so I am looking forward to seeing the direction they take with this. Could be new and exciting.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
You don't need the R&D of a functional prototype to file a patent. You just need a sufficiently articulated concept.
That is going to be a tiny fraction of the cost of what it takes to make a functional unit.
Ideas for "patentable technology" are not the big hurdle in getting a patent. Tons of things that fit that criteria don't go through with getting a patent because the ideas are developed and implemented by people who don't have the resource well to defend the patent when it is infringed upon, or people that don't want to divulge trade secret in order to get a patent in the first place.
The research needed pertaining to already existing patents is the most time consuming and expensive of the process. Probably a drop in the bucket for them, though.
I learned a long time ago to not get my hopes up about a new Nintendo console (or any new console for that matter). They've released a constant stream of mediocrity since the N64, so this is pretty much par for course for them. I will say though, at least Nintendo actually still makes real game consoles unlike Sony and MS, who just repackage low end PC's into a small box and call it a game console.
The research needed pertaining to already existing patents is the most time consuming and expensive of the process. Probably a drop in the bucket for them, though.
Just by the very nature of their business I would have assumed that they are ALREADY doing that type of patent research to ensure that their concepts and development don't infringe on existing patents.
So that's only an additional cost if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.
The research needed pertaining to already existing patents is the most time consuming and expensive of the process. Probably a drop in the bucket for them, though.
Just by the very nature of their business I would have assumed that they are ALREADY doing that type of patent research to ensure that their concepts and development don't infringe on existing patents.
So that's only an additional cost if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.
I was indirectly agreeing with what you were saying earlier.
No face buttons, no buy. I liked the Wii U controller many many times better. I hope this is just a distraction patent like suggested. If they are going to give us controllers like this, they may as well just let us use our cellphones as controllers.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
You don't need the R&D of a functional prototype to file a patent. You just need a sufficiently articulated concept.
That is going to be a tiny fraction of the cost of what it takes to make a functional unit.
Ideas for "patentable technology" are not the big hurdle in getting a patent. Tons of things that fit that criteria don't go through with getting a patent because the ideas are developed and implemented by people who don't have the resource well to defend the patent when it is infringed upon, or people that don't want to divulge trade secret in order to get a patent in the first place.
I currently hold a patent, and have first-hand knowledge of the hundreds of hours that went into developing the concept, putting together the application, and countless hours on the phone with attorneys, calling patent examiners, etc. It added up to about 3 years of work. While its certainly possible that they are getting a patent for an invention that they have no current plans go forward with, there is no way in hell anyone would go through all that just as a way to trick people.
I currently hold a patent, and have first-hand knowledge of the hundreds of hours that went into developing the concept, putting together the application, and countless hours on the phone with attorneys, calling patent examiners, etc. It added up to about 3 years of work. While its certainly possible that they are getting a patent for an invention that they have no current plans go forward with, there is no way in hell anyone would go through all that just as a way to trick people.
Patents come in all shapes and sizes, and are pretty clearly not equivalent to on another in scope and complexity.
I don't doubt that whatever you patented may have taken that long to get through the process, but a major corporation that already has a dedicated legal team and many many patents worth of process experience is not going to take anywhere near that long to generate something like what is shown in the link.
Just go look at some of the trivial game mechanics that have been patented in the last 15 or 20 years and you can see some examples of stuff that probably shouldn't even be patentable in the first place, and almost certainly is a tiny fraction of the complexity of what you went through.
I highly doubt Nintendo would patent something only as a distraction. But it's possible this is an idea that they were throwing around just in case they do decide to use it. I'm sure that happens all the time - someone gets an idea, they patent it, and end up not using it although it's there just in case.
I highly doubt Nintendo would patent something only as a distraction. But it's possible this is an idea that they were throwing around just in case they do decide to use it. I'm sure that happens all the time - someone gets an idea, they patent it, and end up not using it although it's there just in case.
Yeah, the distraction comment was just an offhand remark about some of the stupid stuff that companies spend the time and money to patent.
The bigger point was that a lot of these patents on concepts seem to be placeholders at best, and major tech companies have dedicated groups for churning them out to suppress what other people can do without a license fee.
I'm optimistic that Nintendo knows what they are doing.
*Coughs* "New" Nintendo 3ds *Coughs*
also I'm still waiting for them to do something interesting with the Wii U... All these touch screen controllers Nintendo has made recently (Wii U, Ds, 3ds) I find them incredibly awkward and uncomfortable to use whenever the game actually requires me to use the touch screen. For example TLoZ LBW was an amazing game with intuitive controls but the only thing that kept throwing me off was using the touch screen for the items menu, I didn't understand why it was necessary, it could have just been a normal menu that I could have used the buttons for... I was hoping that Nintendo would have learned from their mistake with the Wii U but it looks like they're going to do the same thing again... I just want games not gimmicks.
Comments
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
We can only hope, but given Nintendo's track record of making terrible systems for 20 years I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The buttons on my 27 year old NES controller work better than any touch screen.
This ^^^^^
The buttons on my 27 year old NES controller work better than any touch screen.
This ^^^^^
Still kickin after so many years! Incredible.
Man, how am I going to not get fingerprints all over that screen.
Very thin gloves? :-P
Yeah fingerprints sound like it will still be an issue with gloss and glare though, Especially if the rumors are true... But The NX is shaping up to be Quite Exciting!
For others worried about Gimmicky Touch Controls I dont think the ABXY Buttons and thumbsticks are going anywhere.
I also dont think its necessarily the "Touch Screen" Aspect that they are pressing as the important feature that they want to ensure a patent here for thier next venture, I believe it is the Backlit Screen covering the entire controller as a visual Interactive Overlay (With holes through the screen for Buttons Joysticks etc.) and just so happens to ALSO be touch screen.
Rumor is that they have been working with Sharp on Utilizing their FREE FORM LCD Tech.
Very Exciting as the Screen can be Cut and Shaped to any specification!
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/7/7511317/sharp-free-form-display-nintendo-ces-2015
What happened to phones? They went from flip phones with buttons to smartphones with swipe screens. And cell phone sales are the best they've ever been.
I am another one who held out with a phone with physical keyboard for as long as possible Just like I wouldn't consider playing most NES games on my touch only phone, I wouldn't consider buying a gamepad with touch only buttons. Some types of games work fine with no feedback, but it also rules out many other types.
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/12/fascinating_patent_shows_nintendo_portable_utilising_free-form_screen_technology
They are clearly showing (Demonstrating as pictured) Holes through the Touch Screen for 2 Analog Joysticks and even 1 Button on the Sketch up.
Again this is only a rough design on a patent. (Meant not to leak the final concept to conpetitors) meaning that Obviously more buttons can be applied to the final product but just a general Idea of how the device will function.
One picture shows flames over the thumbsticks like a reaction to being burned by what looks like a Giant Iquana Attacking you. Again this Does not mean that the next game will feature a Giant Iquana. lol
But I still cant stop thinking about Leon from star fox. and the Snow Bros.
I was all ready to take the plunge for Star Fox and Zelda, but who knows what they will do with those now. It sucks because I really want a WiiU until I go to the game section and there is nothing there worth a damn. There are some massive AAA games that have been driving the market over the last decade, none of which are on a Nintendo console. Its a shame because I think a lot of the AAA titles that have come out could really benifit from the WiiU's unique controller.
Instead, they have carved out their niche to be a complimentary console, instead of a direct substitute. Do something innovative and unique, price around 50-60% of the MS / Sony console and give people a reason to buy both. That is what they have been doing and that is what they will continue to do. It is actually a perfect business model for them... the Wii was a mega hit, the Wii U was mediocre and hopefully the next generation is somewhere in between.
Guys, I seriously doubt Nintendo will EVER make a console to go toe to toe with MS and Sony. That is not their style anymore, let's be realistic here. Besides, they'd get absolutely slaughtered by Sony and Microsoft anyway. Their online system is a joke at this stage. And if you want to build a technological powerhouse of a system to compete with MS / Sony, you'd need your FPS, Sports games and online titles. That would be the death of the company.
Instead, they have carved out their niche to be a complimentary console, instead of a direct substitute. Do something innovative and unique, price around 50-60% of the MS / Sony console and give people a reason to buy both. That is what they have been doing and that is what they will continue to do. It is actually a perfect business model for them... the Wii was a mega hit, the Wii U was mediocre and hopefully the next generation is somewhere in between.
I dont know where youre buying stuff at, but the WiiU is the same price as the PS4 and Xbone.
If you want to be mediocre, thats fine. Mediocre doesnt last though, just ask Sega. Then again, Nintendo system have been pretty mediocre since the N64 came out, and its worked for them. Just seems lame though, because there are more people out there like me that have no reason to buy a WiiU then there are people who jump on the system because its a Nintendo item.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
You don't need the R&D of a functional prototype to file a patent. You just need a sufficiently articulated concept.
That is going to be a tiny fraction of the cost of what it takes to make a functional unit.
Ideas for "patentable technology" are not the big hurdle in getting a patent. Tons of things that fit that criteria don't go through with getting a patent because the ideas are developed and implemented by people who don't have the resource well to defend the patent when it is infringed upon, or people that don't want to divulge trade secret in order to get a patent in the first place.
The research needed pertaining to already existing patents is the most time consuming and expensive of the process. Probably a drop in the bucket for them, though.
Just by the very nature of their business I would have assumed that they are ALREADY doing that type of patent research to ensure that their concepts and development don't infringe on existing patents.
So that's only an additional cost if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.
The research needed pertaining to already existing patents is the most time consuming and expensive of the process. Probably a drop in the bucket for them, though.
Just by the very nature of their business I would have assumed that they are ALREADY doing that type of patent research to ensure that their concepts and development don't infringe on existing patents.
So that's only an additional cost if their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing.
I was indirectly agreeing with what you were saying earlier.
I was indirectly agreeing with what you were saying earlier.
I wonder how often major corporations file "distraction" patents in order to throw competitors off the scent of what they're really working on.
I think you are underestimating how much effort it takes to be granted a patent. It is not trivial, and not something you would want to do as a throwaway distraction.
I think you might be overestimating the cost of a patent relative to the budget of companies like this.
The actual filing and attorney fees may be a drop in the bucket to them, but the R&D cost to come up with a patentable technology is still a significant investment of their human resources.
You don't need the R&D of a functional prototype to file a patent. You just need a sufficiently articulated concept.
That is going to be a tiny fraction of the cost of what it takes to make a functional unit.
Ideas for "patentable technology" are not the big hurdle in getting a patent. Tons of things that fit that criteria don't go through with getting a patent because the ideas are developed and implemented by people who don't have the resource well to defend the patent when it is infringed upon, or people that don't want to divulge trade secret in order to get a patent in the first place.
I currently hold a patent, and have first-hand knowledge of the hundreds of hours that went into developing the concept, putting together the application, and countless hours on the phone with attorneys, calling patent examiners, etc. It added up to about 3 years of work. While its certainly possible that they are getting a patent for an invention that they have no current plans go forward with, there is no way in hell anyone would go through all that just as a way to trick people.
I currently hold a patent, and have first-hand knowledge of the hundreds of hours that went into developing the concept, putting together the application, and countless hours on the phone with attorneys, calling patent examiners, etc. It added up to about 3 years of work. While its certainly possible that they are getting a patent for an invention that they have no current plans go forward with, there is no way in hell anyone would go through all that just as a way to trick people.
Patents come in all shapes and sizes, and are pretty clearly not equivalent to on another in scope and complexity.
I don't doubt that whatever you patented may have taken that long to get through the process, but a major corporation that already has a dedicated legal team and many many patents worth of process experience is not going to take anywhere near that long to generate something like what is shown in the link.
Just go look at some of the trivial game mechanics that have been patented in the last 15 or 20 years and you can see some examples of stuff that probably shouldn't even be patentable in the first place, and almost certainly is a tiny fraction of the complexity of what you went through.
I highly doubt Nintendo would patent something only as a distraction. But it's possible this is an idea that they were throwing around just in case they do decide to use it. I'm sure that happens all the time - someone gets an idea, they patent it, and end up not using it although it's there just in case.
Yeah, the distraction comment was just an offhand remark about some of the stupid stuff that companies spend the time and money to patent.
The bigger point was that a lot of these patents on concepts seem to be placeholders at best, and major tech companies have dedicated groups for churning them out to suppress what other people can do without a license fee.
I'm optimistic that Nintendo knows what they are doing.
*Coughs* "New" Nintendo 3ds *Coughs*
also I'm still waiting for them to do something interesting with the Wii U... All these touch screen controllers Nintendo has made recently (Wii U, Ds, 3ds) I find them incredibly awkward and uncomfortable to use whenever the game actually requires me to use the touch screen. For example TLoZ LBW was an amazing game with intuitive controls but the only thing that kept throwing me off was using the touch screen for the items menu, I didn't understand why it was necessary, it could have just been a normal menu that I could have used the buttons for... I was hoping that Nintendo would have learned from their mistake with the Wii U but it looks like they're going to do the same thing again... I just want games not gimmicks.