Why would anyone buy a kit to charge a controller which charges with a provided USB cable, or any USB cable, for that matter?  Since Sony provides a USB cable with the PS3 (I think), I'd have to say that's a moot point.

Its the 360 controllers that have the custom charge cables, and "optional" rechargable battery packs (which hikes the price to $65/controller, not $50).  You can't use a 360 controller (or a Wii controller) without, at the least, the expense of some AA batteries right off, or a recharge pack.  Thus you really are required to pay more.

It really isn't. 360 Arcade has been cheaper for a while now.

PS3 is still way expensive but at least you get blu ray.

For the average new gamer this is BS. Most of the casual type games only require a Wii-remote. So that would be 250 + (3x45) = $385. Which still ticks in as the lowest for the new gamer. Which the posting and article seem to indicate in regards. It's very sad that most people undervalue the usefulness of the Wii Remote. I use it on my PC game often enough. The relax nature of the controls just make non high key game just that much better.

I will however say no. It's not as affordable, but that doesn't mean the other 2 console are more affordable now than before. With the economy going as it is the higher costs of the Wii-remote are certainly a downer, but let's put it in perspective.

The Wii is deemed as a part machine. As such it's expect that it's a 4 player family system. The PS3 and 360 are soloist of pal machine. As such I would rate them as 2 player consoles(not saying they can't support more and their are exceptions).

This puts the initial costs at the respective systems differently than the article.

Wii(250) + 3(135[45]) controllers is $385
PS3(400) + 1(55) controller is $455
360(300) + 1(50) controller is $350

Looking at the above values we can see that 360 and Wii are comparitive in cost in there respective audience and general use. However the Wii for an ailing economy is still the better value. Why?

Well it comes down to taking the cost in bites. The Wii is cheaper initial investment. Each controller is a little cheaper. When you budgeting money you tend to look at valuing costs over a longer period of time rather than in a large single amount. Even if we were to stack on the Nunchuk and WM+ extras. They do not require to be purchased at initial time of investment. It makes a psychological difference.

So the Wii to the average new gamer is the still the system of choice for pricing. Yes if we count the entire costs as a single big numeric entity then the Wii is and has always been a expensive machine in regards to controlllers. But the fact that we can spend at our budget leisure gives us room to breath.

My personal exmaple. I bought a new Wii remote 2 weeks ago. I did not buy the nunchuk. next month I will look at a nunchuk. But considering that most of our 4 player games don't use a nunchuk we are not in a rush to purchase.

The article is just as loser thoughts as ever.

Well if the PS3 can be played wirelessly with rechargable batteries, than it's only fair to include that in the price...

While we're at it we could also say this whole article is stupid because each console offers something that the others CAN NOT, making price comparison a moot subject...

Which it is.

I'm just saying that "I see what he's trying to say...", it's just a pointless argument.  I am not trying to really say the Wii, the 360, or the PS3 is more or less value.  Price is price, you can't argue with that.

I agree. Selling a console, by parts, is a better way to make more money per console.

Its a tried-and-true marketing plan, and it works well. Nintendo and MS both rake in dough by selling, effectively semi-necessary, accessories. Sony's accessories are all really in "optional" land -- the Eye, BD remote, etc.  

You can argue that they are looking out for their consumer, or that they are "forcing" their consumers to have all the tools necessary to enjoy their gaming experience, and offering something of a discount for accepting that.  You could argue that Nintendo and MS are not forcing anything opn the consumer... except of course that their commonplace accessories end up costing a bit more than the sum total of purchasing the Sony product.

Kinda pointless debate.

Rechargeable batteries are not that expensive, and many people already have a charger. The 360 controllers are not $65.

What if the battery of the PS3 breaks? I doubt it's the same price as a pair of rechargeable batteries since it's proprietary.

How is Wii Motion Plus, a blue tooth or wired head set, a flight stick, a steering wheel, a balance board, a PSEYE or MS Camera, any more optional or required than any other peripheral... other than batteries.

I believe Sony offers freebie replacements of PS3 controllers whose batteries no longer work.  Also, they always work via direct power from the cable.

The MS controller r eally is more expensive, in the end.  And um... you aren't supposed to use rechargeable AAs in them.  Doing so voids the warranty right there and then, as I recall.

If you own a 360 for more than a year or two, the battery cost will exceed that of the PS3 controller, no question.  Most people own their 360s longer than that, I would hope.  As an interesting aside, the same applies to XBL Gold fees.  Want to play online for more than a year or so?  Gonna cost.  Most people interested in online... are so for more than a year.

Even if it voids the warranty, who cares... It's not like they're going to ever find out.

Nintendo should integrate it into the wii. Or else it isnt going to go very far. The balance board had wii fit so it wasnt so gimmicky but a block of plastic for 20 bucks isnt going to have many takers.