For those complaining about the PS5 pad battery life and integrated (lithium-ion) battery, instead of the AA "best of both worlds" mantra, or not caring about the kids.
Do you just think Sony are incompetent/wrong in their design choices? Or is it that you care very little - compared to them - about the ecological impact of their eco-friendly considerations - when designing products - that will have a large carbon footprint when successfully selling +100m consoles?
When you consider the ease with which any AA batteries can end up in landfil - because of their small size - or the way in which another delivery or car journey - out to buy AA batteries - adds to the carbon footprint, as does the additional plastic packaging of the replacement batteries.
Even comparing the materials used for AA's that package the inner battery chemicals compared to lith-ion shows far more wastage by area - and less opportunitey to improve on those materials' negative carbon footprint.
Then you've got the comparison of energy efficiency (per volume) - between a custom li-ion battery designed optimised for its use case - and a generic old standard shape AA battery with chemical and voltage/amperage constraints for decades of compatibility; irrespective of what the use case needs - so more heat generated and more energy wasted, even if they do last longer.
As for battery size, Sony could easily do a pad with more weight with a bigger battery. But again that adds to the carbon footprint, for shipping the console, and separate pads, so is magnified across the +100m sales they plan for.
Probably being just below the apex - of battery-life to user charging-innconvience for 49% of their users - IMHO is the best ecological option balanced against PS5 QoL.
Every gamer I've known buys two controllers for every console, because most gamers have shared their gaming at sometime or another, and know they'll need a second pad for when a sister/brother/friend, etc come to play. That spare redundant pad also doubles up as the QoL benefit for single player gaming when you can just switch to the pad that's sat on charge while you game. On balance even that has a lower carbon footprint, because spare pads and more AA batteries will be needed on Xbox too for player 2, even if sat in a drawer doing nothing most of the year round.
Nintendo equally balance their footprint. They copy Xbox with the 40hr pad option, and copy PlayStation with the integrated solution, but they opt out of the redundant waste by only doing the 40hr pad battery in the Pro controller - meaning the number sold is a fraction of the console install base they intend, and it also doubles up as the player 2 pad option.
In case anyone is thinking I've some eco-warrior, that's certainly far from it, it is just that we've all been forced to recycle at a personal level for atleast 15years(in the UK) and I have been condition to wondering why I'm wasting 2hrs a week on a bin problem and companies aren't doing their part.
TLDR
AA batteries are worse for the world we live in, so there's no "best of a single world", never mind two world