Who was smarter about controller batteries?

yea anyone that knows anything about batteries does.

last 5 years NiMH rechargeable technology has rapidly advanced.

AAs are now the supreme beings in the battery world.

It's amazing how many Lems will, in the same breath, gush over how Kinect is so innovative and futuristic and then laud M$ for keeping the 1980's alive and well by requiring AA batteries for their controller. It must be inordinately painful for the Lems to be pulled so hard towards the past & future simultaneously.

While i think MS should include a Play and Charge kit with every console, the ability to use AA batteries is a good thing. I've personally had to replace a DS3 battery when it went completely dead, luckily i had a Sixaxis i never used that could donate it's battery but still, now i've got one less controller.

Options are good.

... ....………. ... LOL

People with common sense will say batteries are better when it comes to gaming controllers

All speculation and 'what if' bull shit.

You can't possibly claim the DS4 will be dead in a year, when no ones owned one for more than a few months. I've never seen a dead DS3, so I have no reason to believe it will happen with this one.

I have a launch PS3 controller and still charges and play,a DS 3 since they where introduce and still charges and play great,so getting a new controller is pulled from deed down your a$$...hahaha

Yep is so damn stupid,yeah lets put triple A on an iphone,that way you can change the batteries for better ones..

People don't care about charging the cell phone era has make complaining about charging irrelevant,the average tablet get 6 to 9 hours,after that charge again and it doesn't let you use double AA or triple A.

They just want an excuse to justify those $25 MS is ripping out of them,that battery cost sony like $3 or $4 MS charged you for a pair $25 when even duracell ones with charger are cheaper and last longer to.

Do you take your gaming controller outside the house with you? Do you move it away from your console? I doubt it. Maybe I'm just lucky that I spent £5 in 2005 for a stand and 2 pairs that still last for 15 hours each. I guess most console gamers play on monitors now at a desk because they seem to have no problem with the short USB lead

Letting a side been AA or build in,MS should included the play and charge kit,instead of charging people for it apart.

Also you can buy replacements for DS3 batteries for as low as $6 i think on ebay,depending on how big you want the battery.

Lucky no liar yeah probably...

What brand and stand you bough that lasted that long and give you 15 hours of play still.

The stand just says energizer on it and the batteries are uniross 2500 mah

damn my DS3's are 4-5yrs old and work perfectly fine so if the same quality was put in the DS4 i don't expect them to live for just a year..

TC you must be one die-hard lemming to try and defend the use of AA batteries in controllers in 2013 :)

NINTENDO.

Their 40(?) hour battery life in the pro controller is unbeatable.

I still have my original sixaxis controllers since launch. I still haven't noticed them getting any weaker.

Also, what was that silly thing about needing to plug the controller while playing? How about plugging it in while you're NOT playing, that way it's freshly charged when you boot up a game.

LOL at defending having to continually buy batteries for a controller....

How can you defend AA batteries? Shit is wack son.

Don,t know why people feel the need to lie about a controller just to justify which piece of plastic they have decided to buy. I've had the same DS3 for 4 years not and play around 30h per week and it still holds charge for 4-5 hours easily.

Sometimes it's just too easy for people to come on here and spout shit. Maybe we should have a sub section for bullshit.

I'll start: "I bought an Xbox One controller and AA batteries only last 12 minutes. I bought a charge and play kit and it blew up my house. I'd advise anyone not to buy an xbox one."

Read that back and realise how stupid these fanboys sound.

$120 a year for controllers for the PS3/PS4....well at least you tried to troll. Fell flat on your face while attempting to do so, but you tried.

I'm not bothered by the lack of a built in rechargeable battery for the X1. I actually like the idea of a separate rechargeable battery so when it's charge lesses over the years, it isn't you whole controller that suffers and just the one component that is replaceable.

But i do wish they included the play and charge kit in the box so you didn't have to buy separately. Oh well, i got a promotional offer through MS store when preordering my games that pays for the kit.

My PS3 controller has been going strong for 5 years, and that's with almost daily use for atleast several hours.

You're reaching, lemming. MS is fucking you in the ass and you're turning around, smiling, and thanking them for it.

Who's bullshitting?

Rechargeable AA batteries is the way to go.....DS4 would have benefit the most with AA batteries because it lasts a ridiculously low 7-10 hours per charge.

A new rechargeable battery for X1 costs like $10. A new rechargeable battery for PS4 cost $60. You tell me which is the better option for consumers.

DS4. What other high-end consumer electronic product uses AA batteries? I feel the built-in battery is a batter value for the consumer. I have a 4 yr old DS3 and 2 yr old DS3 controller, they both hold a charge perfectly fine.

I never thought I'd say it but these days I strongly prefer double A batteries to rechargeable controllers. The only time rechargeable controllers have an advantage is when I'm traveling. Other then that it's easier with batteries. Of course only if you have rechargeables. Which in my case I always have 4 ready to go from my charging station save the times I switch out.

With my PS3 I'm down to one controller (NHL does a number on gamepads) and when that gets low I have to temporarily turn it into a wired controller. Granted it's not the end of the world as it holds a decent charge and only takes ~20 minutes to get a full charge but it's not as convient as using rechargeable batteries in an Xbox controller.

I've never had a DS3 die so no point pissing and moaning about the possibility. That isn't the problem with Sony controllers, the real problem with DS4 seems to be a weak battery life to begin with. Microsoft's way of milkage and AA battery inconvenience isn't better either. But really, what a massive non-issue either way.

I too liked the wired controller both for PC and not having to worry about batteries.

Here's my thoughts on this gen (please note I don't have an XB1 controller but I do have a PS4 - last gen I gamed on a 360 not a PS3 so ...)

Batteries
1. I have never minded replaceable batteries. They are convenient and I never have to worry about charging my controller.
2. In terms of expense they cost a few dollars a month at most. Buy a giant pack (esp when on sale) and you're done.

vs

Rechargable
1. I HATE that the cord is so short. These people who say that they play with cord plugged in must either live in a shoebox or stand 2 feet from their TV's. Isn't console gaming supposed to be easy and played from your couch? Thats what hear when people rag on the PC.
2. The PS4 has to be in standby mode while the controller recharges. Now I've no idea how much power that uses but it certainly isn't free (and I also didn't realise the first night that this was the case so got to spend the next morning playing standing in front of my TV).
3. Recharging isn't that big a deal. I very rarely have marathon gaming sessions anymore. However, you have to rely on other people being as dilligent about plugging the controller back in (my wife will NEVER do that after watching netflix) or about leaving the console in standby mode.

For me personally I really don't care that much one way or the other. I have a slight preference towards batteries but not anything to get upset about, I do find it hilarious that anyone would think it worth making a big issue over, or that its a landslide in favour of one option or the other.

I cant believe people are STILL defending the use of seperate batteries whether its the official ms battery or their own rechargable AA's.

Why do you think mobile phones use recharble batteries inside them?? its convenient thats why and they can supply a good amount of power for that life could you imagine running a cellular phone with AA batteries whether they're rechargable or not, of course you wouldnt its a ridiculous suggestion especially in 2013/14 so why would a (supposed) state of the art cutting edge device choose to use such backward tech? because there are people like all of those in this thread that defend the practice and carry on giving MS their money.

I think its hilarious picturing all of these people sitting around with their handfulls of AA batteries waiting for the dam things to die so they can prise them out and stuff new ones in 'til the next time and they need to do it again.....LOLOL

LOL at your ignorance............

Wow...such wit. We are in the presence of such intellectual depth.....don't get so butt hurt dude. LOL

You mean like people who still defend physical media vs digital? I see alot of PS users doing that ...

Don't see the analogy here dude. Nothing wrong at all with physical media.

I guess all that emo music of yours is starting to take its toll

LOL now you display ignorance of music...gj.

You really don't see the analogy between people saying that batteries are outdated in 2013 but that discs vs digital isn't? Or that its ok to have the right to choose physical over digital but that choosing batteries over rechargable is stupid? Wow, alright.

Wow...such wit. We are in the presence of such intellectual depth.....don't get so butt hurt dude. LOL

No I don't see the analogy. Nothing wrong with physical media...several reasons. For one thing...some people are collectors. Second...some people don't want to have to lose games when they run out of space on the hard drive. And they still exist if one loses the ability to access the downloads.

As for batteries.....rechargeable save money in the long run. But hey....spend that money all you want dude. I'd rather save the money and use it for more games.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. ;)

@LJS9502_basic: The analogy is perfect. Its about "I like my choice better yours is stupid".

You prefer physical vs digital for the reasons you gave, likewise its perfectly fine for someone to like their own batteries over an internal one. People can justify their choices any way they choose but different solutions work for different people. For some convenience and choice outweighs cost, for others the cheaper option is better.

Pretty good video.

@mrxboxone: Dude, my launch ps3 controller still works and holds a charge 6-7 years later. AA batteries was an awful move and that's why they bring out the play and charge kit. It should be in the controller not sold separately.

They brought it out to give you a choice if you wanted to use rechargeable not because it's better. I really don't understand why cows are soooooo hell bent on telling people choices are bad.

I don't know how many times I forgot to charge my controller and it was dead when it came time for me to play. Never had that problem with MS controllers. I will always prefer having a choice rather than not having 1 at all.

I guess cows are different. They'd rather be told what's good for them.

My PS3 controllers still work fine since launch. The PS4 batteries are the same and last for 9 years. Both you can play for 8-10 hours before charging them.

MS doesn't include the internal rechargeable battery, because they're too cheap and they want to make money off of consumers buying them afterwards.

Fact is whatever MS does is the best to Lems. If MS made the X1 controllers built in rechargeable, they would say that it lasts longer than the DS4. Although we would know that to be BS since Sony uses the best and longest lasting built in rechargeable available.

Just as we know that using AA or having to buy the charge n play packs isn't as good as having them built in, but Lems will say it is because it's what's MS does.

They said Bluray wasn't that great since the 360 didn't have it. They said HDMI wasn't better when the 360 came out only component. They say that being able to swap out the HDD with any brand any capacity HDD isn't better since MS doesn't allow it. They say the all the free games Sony gives you on PSN isn't that great since MS doesn't give them new games with Xlive. They said the web browser wasn't useful since the 360 didn't have it. They said. Whatever MS does and limits them to is the best and necessary. I call this wearing X-goggles. It makes for Lame Lemming Logic (LLL).

You sir, are awesome, **** lemmings.

How are individual batteries milkage??? Are you buying MS batteries....just buy a cheap set of rechargables for £5 and have done with it for 3 years.

This batteries vs charge pack is such a non issue. I prefer rechargables because I can alternate between the two sets of batteries meaning I am always able to have charge.

LLL