Well since Epic did it with their billions and considering that Google is richer and wants to sell a console like everyone else, I could easily se them pulling that, and I doubt Sega would say no to a moneyhat. 

That controller style looks like someone took the modern controller style and recreated into a retro 80's controller that looks very uncomfortable to hold.

You make a good point.  Your point is entirely about market share though.

What I was really referring to was profit more than market share.  If companies are going to stay in the console business what really matters is profit.  There is only so much profit potential to go around.  At most the market can support 3 console makers and even then 1-2 of them are often unprofitable.  Then the unprofitable companies either decide it isn't worth it (like NEC) or they stay around for another generation hoping that things will turn around.  In the worst case they might even be forced out (like Sega) because they are financially in terrible shape.  When you look at profit, the most lopsided generation was actually generation 7, because Nintendo made rediculous amounts of profit while Sony and Microsoft both took heavy losses.  But both Sony and Microsoft decided to stay with it in hopes of turning things around.

So now Google is entering the market.  I just don't think there is enough profit potential to support 4 companies.  One of them will get spanked so badly that they will have to leave.  That very well could just be Google themselves though.

My point is that the market has always sustained at most 3 relevant consoles.  (And yes NEC did have a relevant console.  The SNES was released because the PC-Engine was selling well in Japan.)  After that there is just not enough profit to go around.

Now you may have a point in that if enough new territories open up, then there may be enough customers to go around.  But in practice it tends not to happen this way.  In practice one console ends up being dominant worldwide.  The PS2 was successful everywhere, so was the Wii and so is the PS4.  That leaves the other two competitors fighting over the scraps.  I don't think there are enough scraps to sustain another competitor entering the market.

Well i'm set in my old ways now, so won't be getting it lol.

To the young ones, if you do venture, hopefully it will be worth it.

Exactly. And this goes tenfold when talking about 1st person shooters.  Sony got it so right, pretty much every controller since as copied the design, but with their own small alterations.

However, MS changed the design further for the Xbox, offsetting the sticks. Fans of the brand prefer it, not because its better, but because it is synonymous with that brand.  

How hilarious would it be if it was leaked later that Google came to this decision as payback for Microsoft entering their turf (Bing, Bing maps, Windows phone)?

Lately, Microsoft has stepped away from Google's markets and focused more on working with the developer's community (cloud based services, sql server and visual studio on other platforms, embracing open source). I wasn't expecting Google to be going into their markets.

Both options of analog stick work great, but, imho, Dualshock symmetrical desing got one major advantage in games. The possibility of using the Claw grip technique on the D-pad, i realy like to use it while playing games like dark souls, monster hunter or any other game that need quick access to d-pad. On such games the offset stick realy fell like a major flaw.

Sorry but that is some janky logic. In the 3D era, our left stick is the primary control option for movement. You thumb should be on it most of the time. But because how it was placed on the PS controller, was due to keeping with the formfactor, not because they thought it was super clever. Many games on the PS1 still used the d-pad prominently cause you know, the PS! first came with a controller with no sticks. We however came to find out that offset works best because we developed upon already great left thumb stick up controllers. The camera movement in all this is secondary, as many games still have facebuttons as primary controls (meaning it should be level with your left stick). The only way you can make the argument that the left and both right stick are primary is if you are talking about fps games, which in all honesty is an inferior experience on console anyway, but the dualshock makes it all the more uncomfortable with the wide reach of your thumb and your index fingers on the triggers, hence crabclaw.

You are right, that even in a bigger market one competitor may sponge off all customers. But with a bigger base to begin with, it is easier to scrape off enough customers to sustain.

But there are two factors here:

1. Google probably don't expect big success in the first gen they are in. Like MS with the original XBox they are probably testing the market and looking for ways to manifest themself to be competitive a gen later. They have the cash to take the losses for one gen.

2. If the consoles are different enough, they can activate different parts of the customerbase. Nintendo already differentiates itself with the hybrid model. I think Google (if the rumours are true) might go after a service/streaming route. I also see MS doing that, even Sony, but as of now PS Now doesn't seem competitive in this field. Google though might be actually pretty good with a streaming/service console model. They know their cloud-shit.

And that right there is the main reason for the symmetrical form factor in the first place. They had to cram in sticks into an existing controller-design fast. I mean, look at it, the sticks basically got added to the existing controller with new space at the controller base. There was basically no thought going into ergonomic considerations. And later they just lazily sticked with this design, instead of redesigning it more useful for the PS2.