Because it's easy....your tied to something and restricted like a hair dryer plugged in .....Simples

Same here. When it runs low I just plug in and carry on. It's no biggy with a longer cable.

Yep I have never had a problem with having to recharge the controllers, I would much rather be doing that then changing batteries.

Restricted from doing what?? When I'm playing I don't tend to wander far from my settee

Same.

I'm not sure what Chrysalis is doing, but getting 60-80 hours out of rechargeable batteries (triple A's I assume?) doesn't sound very likely. Rechargeables don't normally last as long as decent non rechargeables, that's why they have never been as popular.

no worries I do believe you on the install times that the ps4 is much faster.

I am ok with standard batteries as it means I can just use energizer rechargables which I find very conveniant.

I agree,

I am using a wired controller on my ps3 (one I brought as I hated the dualshock that came with it).

I am using wireless on my 360 because the wired I was using has started to wear out and although I brought a new controller I got used to using the wireless for now. But wireless does have disadvantages eg. if auto farming in games, then a wired controller is required.

My point was if a wireless controller needs a wire to charge then it defeats the purpose.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 05-Jan-14 03:29:28)

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

Same.

I'm not sure what Chrysalis is doing, but getting 60-80 hours out of rechargeable batteries (triple A's I assume?) doesn't sound very likely. Rechargeables don't normally last as long as decent non rechargeables, that's why they have never been as popular.

I am just playing games, the 60-80 is a guess, it may be more or less. But I do get a decent amount of hours out of the batteries. When they do run out its 30 seconds to grab the spares and swap them around. Also they double A's so bigger than triple A's.

Whilst the wii-u tablet is a joke with its built in battery, it lasted for me about 2 hours and takes about twice that to charge, so effectively have to keep it plugged in all the time.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 05-Jan-14 03:32:52)

I dont know what this chip does but installing a game i/o will be the bottleneck, but without googling I am going to guess this 2nd chip is dedicated to background installation of the game whilst the game is been played.

The sub 1 minute installs is easily explainable sony are doing the same as steam. When the game starts installing it puts on the critical files first, when they are in place the game can be launched but isnt yet fully installed. Most games on steam can be launched when only a fraction has been downloaded/installed, sony are just doing the same. This doesnt really need fancy hardware just clever programming, since its now commonplace on pc gaming.

i have been told of this second chip and understand it to be like a smart phone type processor that deals with allot of the background stuff leaving the main processor to play games .

Not sure exactly what background stuff it deals with , have been told it looks after private message's , notification's and party chat and now the installation of games .

But that's all i know and not being a techno geek i do have to take what others say on merit but looking at the load times of the xbox one versus the PS4 i would have to say the inclusion of the other chip is a very good thing .

Im still totally up in the air about which console to get and invest my time in , im still leaning towards the xbone as i spend 90% of my console time on the 360 gaming and chatting with friends something Microsoft got right very early on .

Being a social gamer there really was no other choice but a 360 but im feeling Sony learn from their weaknesses and the inclusion of a chat headset ( even though very basic ) really does say Sony gets why allot of people that owned both , chose the xbox as their primary online gaming machine even with the subscription .

Edited by deleted (Sun 05-Jan-14 06:23:36)