3rd parties can't find success because:

1. They release weaker content on Nintendo's platforms. Remember the wii exclusives like Mad World, Conduit, Zack Wicki, No More Heroes, The On rails resident evil spinoff?  Yeah, they would have flopped on any console. Ignoring that most of those titles only managed 7-8/10 in review scores (bad by AAA standards) they were always niche in appeal. The few 3rd party content that was actually appealling tended to be ports and they actually performed very well. Resident Evil 4 outsold the gamecube version and was only 1m away from the ps2 version, despite being a 3 year old port and being released when the wii's userbase was under 10m. Okami wii outsold the PS2 version in North america and Europe. Most movie tie ins done very well on the wii and the COd games managed to pass 1m depsite there being no reason to play them on a wii.

2. Nintendo versions of games are inferior due to hardware limitations+ online infrastructure

Why would anyone buy COD on the Wii as opposed to the 360/PS3? Even if the wii had the mass effect trilogy, Assassins creed and Skyrim, everyoen would still buy the ps3/360/PC versions. Due to the Wii's price and weak hardware it was a secondary console. Essentially it existed only for the exclusives and the occassional 3rd party game that was esspetially suited to the hardware or those where graphics didn't matter (mainly kid titles).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now unlike the Wii, the Wii U is a costly system to develop for (as Nintendo are finding out), so we wont recieve stand alone 3rd party exclusives tailored to the system like we saw last gen. But similar to wii, the Wii  U is a generation below its competitors (although not as noticable), both in terms of power, architecture and online infrastructure. Essentially Nintendo are in worser position now then they were last gen. The Wii U is too expensive to be seen as a throwaway secondary console, not does it have the pull (wii fit, wii sports, mario galaxy, mario kart, Smash bros) to sell itself as one. Not yet anyway.

I detailed it in a previous response on here, but there was a lot going against the gamecube and a lot more against the N64. Power does not equate to winning, but it is a component of the equation. Remember that the Xbox and Gamecube performed pretty much the same, now look what microsoft achieved with the 360.

This post. People reference privous gens without actually looking at what actually happened in them. The PS2 had a monopoly for a reason.

Yeah honestly Nintendo was drunk during the GameCube era. Imagine if Sony came out and said we're turning God Of War into a first person adventure game, Gran Turismo will now be a street racer like Burnout, Madden NFL will now be an arcadey football game, and Call of Duty is a third person action game with swords now ... oh and we sold Naughty Dog to Microsoft, hope you didn't like Uncharted or Jak. 

That's basically akin to some of the decisions Nintendo made during the GameCube era. 

Smash Bros. and Star Wars Rogue Squadron were direct sequels without any meddling and those two games performed great (surprise surprise).

Show me a GameCube that launches in fall 2000 with Perfect Dark and something more along the lines of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy later on in place of Wind Waker and Sunshine ... and I'll show you a console that sells 40 million at least and crushes the XBox. 

Nintendo should've just transitioned the N64 into the kids/Pikachu console (I mean they did release that hideous Pikachu N64) for the last couple of years, and moved more "serious" projects like Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Sin & Punishment, and perhaps even Paper Mario and Zelda: Majora's Mask over to the GameCube to launch in 2000. 

Gotta say I agree with you guys 100% here, I've never even thought about it that way before. Quite the eye opener.

On the flip sid and keeping OT, the GameCube had HW parity with PS2/XB yet it didn't really help it with 3rd party support.

My point its that if the Wii U was a GameCube U it would still suffer from this. GTAV, Tomb Raider, Bioshock etal wouldn't all of a sudden magically appear.

It didn't work 10 years ago on GameCube and we've essentially got to a point where Nintendo mean less to the hardcore than they did back then so I couldn't see it working now.

It would have been a better move than the Wii U, for sure. The Gamecube was an odd thing and a poor attempt at the PS1 audience.

More than you'd think.

Yes.  I always thought the Gamecube was a great idea executed poorly.  What the Gamecube needed was to trade its slight power advantage over the PS2 for its launch advantage.

If they would have just released the Wii U for $350 with a 250GB HDD, enough horsepower to at least be half as strong as the Xbox One, and a solid online netwrok...They would have sold gangbusters in 2012.  

Then just drop the price to $300 and release SSB when the PS4 comes out.  Boom, done!

It would have been harder for Nintendo to market thanks to the success of the Wii riding on the novelty of its uniqueness.

Nintendo did push the GamePad pretty hard as the reason for upgrading; so much that it actually caused confusion amongst consumers as to whether it was a peripheral upgrade or a new platform initially. They didn't even show the box at first for those who have forgotten.

Maybe a better question would be "If Nintendo had utilized the resources and hardware costs of the GamePad in the console itself, would it have performed better commercially?"

Not sure if the whole hypothetical "If Nintendo had spent a buttload of money on hardware specs that rivaled the future specs of the PS4 and sold it for $400 would it have sold as well?" question even matters.

Nintendo would have picked up more sales from current PS3 and XB360 users, but would have lost the audience they captured with the novelty of the Wii. In retrospect, it looks like Nintendo lost most of that audience anyway.

The GamePad was a daring idea; slightly riding on the coattails of the success of tablets in the consumer market, but as it were, lighting didn't strike twice for Nintendo and while there are many Nintendo owners who love the utility of the device, it's pretty fair to say that it has not been selling nearly as many consoles as Nintendo would have liked or even as many consoles as they had projected.

I think in hindsight, Nintendo should've moderately upgraded the Wii (Wii HD as it were) in fall 2010 (with DKCR) and kept the Wii brand separate for casual players. Better OS and eShop, more internal storage (Wii was really lacking here), same Wiimote+, slightly beefier chipset that could run newer games at 720p and Netflix in 1080p.

Then launched a new console under a new brand (New NES?) in fall 2012 aimed at more of a core gamer at first. And Wii HD could've sold for a few more years too at $99.99 ... the Wii fizzling so hard in 2011/12 really was bad.

Wii HD - $169.99 launch MSRP (Fall 2010) eventually drop to $99.99 (by fall 2012). Can run games like Wii Sports 3, Wii Fit 3, DKCR, and Zelda: Skyward Sword in 720p (same graphics otherwise), better eShop, more internal storage, better OS. HDMI output, Netflix/Hulu run in 1080p. 

New NES - $349.99 MSRP (Fall 2012), 1TFLOP next-gen console, no tablet controller. Work with some Western 2nd party studios to make 1 or 2 really Western centric IP for launch window, PC architecture, easy for third parties to get a grip on, lots of RAM. Have Metroid and Wave Race games in the launch (spend some of that freaking Wii/DS money) window along with Mario. Drop to $299.99 by fall 2013, aim for a 8-10 million unit headstart. 

I think Nintendo would be sitting pretty right now if they had done this, they'd be selling both systems right now at good amounts IMO.