MidgarBlowedUp
Member
It just doesn't make any sense. Why would you make a wireless controller that must be plugged into the console, when the console is on, just to recharge it? Let's look at some examples of common sense rechargeable controller design so you can understand where I'm coming from.
The Xbox360 wireless controller is a pretty good design because you have a removable battery that can be charged in it's own charger station. This makes sense because I NEVER need to plus the Xbox360 wireless controller into anything at all. I simply swap my dead battery out for a fully charged one.
The Sega Surfwave Dualshock for the PS2. Not only does it feature better rumble than the dual shock, it's also wireless via 2xAA batteries. The really great thing is that the controller can last around 1000 hours before you need to swap in fresh batteries. Also, it's connection is as good or better than the Xbox360 wireless controller mentioned above.
The Nintendo Wavebird for the GC was also a great wireless controller that could last around 100 hours on 2xAA batteries.
* I could use a charge station for the controller, but there are two problems with them. The first, and most obvious, is that they simply don't half work. The other problem is that I must leave the controller itself plugged into the charger. This sounds ok on paper, but in practice doesn't make any logical sense because you either have to go and get the controller from the charger, if it is in a different location than your coffee table, or you might as well leave the controller plugged into the PS3 since the charger needs to be on your coffee table anyway.
* The only option I can come up with that makes any logical sense would be to just purchase two controllers. Leaving one plugged into the PS3 at all times, then switching one out when needed. This technically makes your wireless controller about $100, but until Sony comes out with a better model it's the only viable solution I can think of.
So what have we learned in this thread? Hopefully NOTHING because most of us have enough sense to know that the Sixaxis wireless design is retarded. For those that don't... well, no offense.
The Xbox360 wireless controller is a pretty good design because you have a removable battery that can be charged in it's own charger station. This makes sense because I NEVER need to plus the Xbox360 wireless controller into anything at all. I simply swap my dead battery out for a fully charged one.
The Sega Surfwave Dualshock for the PS2. Not only does it feature better rumble than the dual shock, it's also wireless via 2xAA batteries. The really great thing is that the controller can last around 1000 hours before you need to swap in fresh batteries. Also, it's connection is as good or better than the Xbox360 wireless controller mentioned above.
The Nintendo Wavebird for the GC was also a great wireless controller that could last around 100 hours on 2xAA batteries.
* I could use a charge station for the controller, but there are two problems with them. The first, and most obvious, is that they simply don't half work. The other problem is that I must leave the controller itself plugged into the charger. This sounds ok on paper, but in practice doesn't make any logical sense because you either have to go and get the controller from the charger, if it is in a different location than your coffee table, or you might as well leave the controller plugged into the PS3 since the charger needs to be on your coffee table anyway.
* The only option I can come up with that makes any logical sense would be to just purchase two controllers. Leaving one plugged into the PS3 at all times, then switching one out when needed. This technically makes your wireless controller about $100, but until Sony comes out with a better model it's the only viable solution I can think of.
So what have we learned in this thread? Hopefully NOTHING because most of us have enough sense to know that the Sixaxis wireless design is retarded. For those that don't... well, no offense.
