Journal #6262

that is messed up

Anything to make a buck or fifty.

...

...

This has to be a troll post. The PS3 controller is rechargeable.

...

...

I hope YOU'RE the one trolling Penguinboy. They're obviously talking about non-removable rechargeable batteries. So you can't replace them when they die (though honestly, this must take a fuck of a long time to happen.) And probably the average determined nerd could pop one open and solder a new eBay unit in or something.

But can you replace the batteries?
Edit: ninja.

The determined nerd uses a PC, not a PS3.

Ok, now I'm trolling, just ignore me.

Nah, it's just an opinion ATDestroy. And I agree with it.

Started Christmas shopping in February, finished the other day. I hate shopping just about as much as I hate people so I do in short bursts throughout the year to avoid the rush and screaming children (stab stab stab)

Okay, after doing some more research, and in the spirit if being fair, this needs to be pointed out:

The PS3 controller is indeed recharble. But here's the catch: It's only good for a limited amount of recharges. After that, it's useless and needs to be replaced with a new one. This of course defeats the purpose of the PS3 controller ever being traded or sold as a used item in a second-hand store. Also, certain rechargeable batteries are notorious for breaking down before their time. Laptop batteries anyone?

And last but not least, there's this little quote from Sony themselves that pretty much fails any counter arguments from anybody saying this story is not true - Quote: "there's an environmental benefit since gamers don't have to toss their batteries on a regular basis". Mmm, sounds to me like a confession from Sony.

Crave.com posted this very enlighten report that really goes in to details in to this whole fiasco. If any of you have any doubts, I highly recommend you read it: http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/10/13/sony-ps3-controller-charger-reminds-us-what-we-hate-about-the-ps3/

srry: I thought of that, but assumed that it was not what was being referred to, because as you say, it would take ages and you would quite easily get your money's worth out of the controller before the battery ran out. Hell, I bet you'd go through more than 50 bucks worth of AA batteries in the same time, so the PS3 way probably ends up as the cheaper solution.

I prefer the PS3's way of doing it, personally. Replacing batteries gives me the shits. When you have a rechargeable battery, you can always just plug it into the console to recharge, but on other consoles you have to go and buy some more batteries.

The article is so vaguely worded that it would lead some people to think that the PS3 controller is one-use-only. By the reasoning used in the article, you could pretty much put anything on the list, using the reason: "The quality of this product degrades over time."

Where's the environmental benefit of tossing the WHOLE controller away?

PB, on the 360 you can buy a rechargeable battery, although it should come with the controller. It is useful, it's easily the most useful peripheral that I've ever bought.

lern2hotwire.

[dork] I did that with an old Game Boy that only took batteries and my mom refused to constantly buy me more. It was easy. Although if you get zapped, you're doing it wrong. I then played Pokemon Blue until it went out of style. [/dork]

I played it after it went out of style!

The thing is though, it's not like rechargeable AA or even proprietary batteries don't exist. And it's not like Sony couldn't provide a removable battery pack. That "lol its gud for environment" excuse is the most pathetic sounding bullshit excuse I've heard in a while, and it doesn't even make sense. If Sony gave two shits about the environment instead of just making big bucks and screwing over their customers, they'd let you choose your own batteries or make them replaceable.

I could not have said it better than you, srry.

Hey, as bad as Sony sounds, don't forget about Panasonic's Lumix cameras automatically rejecting other makers' batteries, that's really bad too.