• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

PS3 wireless controller woes EDIT: no more!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fliguy84

Senior member
Jan 31, 2005
916
0
71
Edit - since posting this, impress has corrected the original article. It seems that pairing isn't required, that was a "feature" of the early revisions of the console. It may still be required for the initial connection, for Bluetooth's authentication process, but that would likely be it. The controllers? Those are still disposable
Hope you edit your post OP.

About the battery, you guys are complaining too much :roll:
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: slayer202
wow, read the damn article

Those wondering about battery life will be happy to note the controller is expected to get about 30 hours of playtime out of one 2.5 hour charge. As the battery isn't replaceable, when it's no longer recharging the controller needs to be replaced or sent for repairs.
How much are they going to charge you for repairs though? User-replaceable batteries make more sense.
c'mon this is sony

MS were pretty good allowing you to use standard AA's in their controllers and the option to buy the play and charge kit

if sony made these with user replacable batt's then you know for a fact they wont be run f the mill AA's. it would be some proprietry shaped lithium-ion battery that will have a whacking great price tag.

so the way i see it, you either pay thru the nose for replacable battery, or you pay through the nose to relace/repair the controller. either way you pay through the nose
 

FP

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2005
4,570
0
0
Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
I dont see a problem with 30,000 hours of use. Go complain about something useful.
You have proof they last for 30k hours of real world use? Probably not.

The point is it was a stupid decision to not include batteries the user can replace.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
its stupid. apple atleast has a few semi valid reasons for what they do, they have to deal with size limitations and sleek design. the freakin ps3 controller is nothing more than a ps2 controller slightly rejiggered, its not supposed to fit in a pocket or anything like that, its just another hideous chunk of crude plastic, theres no excuse for making the controller disposable. never mind the fact they no longer have to fit rumble motors inside, theres plenty of space gah..
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,900
14
81
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: binister
Replacements are free

Nice.
Nice service but stupid design. They shouldn't even have to offer this.
Yeah. At very least it'll cost you shipping to Sony, and they'll probably charge you to ship it back to you as well. So you're out $5-10 shipping and you don't have your controller for at least a week.

If they just used rechargeable AAs you'd be out a couple bucks for a set of batteries and you wouldn't be without your controller at all.

But at least they're not ripping you off on the batteries.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY