EDIT: As some have pointed out, the wording of my below question could have been better. As a result I have slightly changed it to be less obnoxious.
Can someone please explain to me why you believe a controller with a built in battery is better than a controller that uses AA batteries?
I think having a built in battery is far less consumer friendly than a controller that uses AA batteries. If we are looking at Xbox vs PS, you can purchase a charge kit for the Xbox controller so you have that choice. With the PS controller you don't have that choice, and when the built in battery starts to no longer hold a charge, you have to either buy a new controller or DIY replace it. How is that a better solution?
As someone who is planning to switch to PS next gen, the built in battery, and the controller battery life, have me the most concerned.
EDIT: I am referring to NI-MH rechargeable AA batteries. This is the same tech used in built in controller batteries. Saying they are worse for the environment makes no sense. They should technically last as long as a built in battery before needing replaced.
EDIT 2: As some of you have mentioned in this thread, another reason that user replaceable batteries are good is hardware preservation. Internal batteries will all eventually die, and eventually aftermarket internal replacement batteries will dry up.
I have also thought more about the environmental argument surrounding batteries. I think we can all ageee that tossing out batteries is bad for the environment, but is it worse than all the cell phones, laptops, tablets, headphones, and controllers that are tossed out simply because the non-replaceable internal battery no longer holds a charge? I am referring to rechargeable batteries. Standard batteries should be banned imo. There is no reason for them to still exist.
EDIT 3: I do agree that the Xbox controller should include a set or Eneloops, a play and charge kit, or be sold cheaper than a DS4. Charging $60 with no included rechargeable batteries is BS.
Can someone please explain to me why you believe a controller with a built in battery is better than a controller that uses AA batteries?
I think having a built in battery is far less consumer friendly than a controller that uses AA batteries. If we are looking at Xbox vs PS, you can purchase a charge kit for the Xbox controller so you have that choice. With the PS controller you don't have that choice, and when the built in battery starts to no longer hold a charge, you have to either buy a new controller or DIY replace it. How is that a better solution?
As someone who is planning to switch to PS next gen, the built in battery, and the controller battery life, have me the most concerned.
EDIT: I am referring to NI-MH rechargeable AA batteries. This is the same tech used in built in controller batteries. Saying they are worse for the environment makes no sense. They should technically last as long as a built in battery before needing replaced.
EDIT 2: As some of you have mentioned in this thread, another reason that user replaceable batteries are good is hardware preservation. Internal batteries will all eventually die, and eventually aftermarket internal replacement batteries will dry up.
I have also thought more about the environmental argument surrounding batteries. I think we can all ageee that tossing out batteries is bad for the environment, but is it worse than all the cell phones, laptops, tablets, headphones, and controllers that are tossed out simply because the non-replaceable internal battery no longer holds a charge? I am referring to rechargeable batteries. Standard batteries should be banned imo. There is no reason for them to still exist.
EDIT 3: I do agree that the Xbox controller should include a set or Eneloops, a play and charge kit, or be sold cheaper than a DS4. Charging $60 with no included rechargeable batteries is BS.
Last edited:
