I like to meet somewhere in the middle.

Still think Nintendo should release home hardware (but sell it at a profit no matter what) but make their games multiplatform. Just give the Nintendo console some extra bits on the side.

This pleases Nintendo fans who would never get another console and are accustomed to everything Nintendo. It also pleases those that don't want Nintendo hardware but want the software, and it also means it doesn't truly matter how many home consoles they sell.

A watered down version of this is releasing their games a couple of years after on competitors platforms. A bit like how Pokemon Red and Blue should be on iOS right now.

Assuming Nintendo went 3rd party, imagine if MS tried to buy Nintendo exclusivity for a game or two like say Zelda. They would hardly sell anywhere. Nintendo's home country wouldn't bend over backwards to get X1s for Zelda and neither would America or Europe.

Sony is prone to do it too of course, but only with Sony would any Nintendo game stand a chance of selling well throughout the world. It's just how the demographic split is with Japanese games.

Hell, all I can hear from friends of people buying X1s in America is if they have Madden or Call of Duty to this day. I swear it's like 2007 all over again.

Edit: In short, it would only be bad for Nintendo.  They might do well with Sony, but there's always the risk that they'd be enticed somehow by MS.  And MS wouldn't get anything out of it either.  

It might be a stinging opinion for some (although I don't really see how) but MS buying Japanese exclusive games only hurts gamers.  Doesn't help MS and definitely doesn't do favors for the developers who think it does.  Gamers get shafted at the end of it.  If the demographics were somehow different and more open maybe not, but that's how it is.

Japan isn't bending over to get WiiU's either, and Zelda isn't that big in Japan. Not the best game you could have picked.

Xbox is far more diverse than you think it is. Say hello to the 15m+ people playing Minecraft on Xbox 360. Hardly the COD/Madden crowd is it?

Look at something like Rayman. It sells about the same across Wii/Xbox. Despite Wii having that kind of userbase. The brand (Rayman) just isn't big enough, it's not that that kind of audience isn't there (as proven on Wii).

This gen is boring enough, would be worse if the least boring of the three was subtracted.

As I said before, Sega is the blueprint of what would potentially happen to Nintendo if they were to abandon hardware. If you look at Sega, they were an arcade company at heart. Integration of hardware and software was a huge part of their culture. They would build hardware specifically designed to play certain types of games. I think when you take a company like that, abandon hardware and suddenly have to make the same game on several different pieces of hardware, that takes away a lot from the creative process. Not to mention, when it comes to consoles, they had their games on one machine and that allowed them to forge an identity and brand.

With Nintendo, it's the same thing. They build they hardware to play the type of games they want to make. This is why games like Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time feel like such a natural fit on the N64's controller. It's why most of Nintendo's Wii games were made FOR that system and not just games that had motion controls as an afterthought (with the exception of Twilight Princess). Nintendo believes in an end to end integration with their hardware and software. One becomes essential for the other.

Then there are other reasons. While I do own a PS3 and Xbox 360, I am not afraid to admit that over the last decade, there hasn't been a lot of interesting things going on with consoles. Wether you loved the Wii or hated it, you have to admit that the idea behind was at least interesting. You also have to admit that both PS3 and Xbox 360 only got better after the Wii was so successful. So competition is another good reason for Nintendo to stay in the hardware business. Sony and Microsoft can do their thing while Nintendo can come along and challenge the status que which can be disruptive to the market which will lead to more competition and better games.

So in short, there are creative reasons, cultural reasons, and competitive advantages for Nintendo to remain in the console business.

You could rephrase that to better online gaming/games.  I don't think it gets hacked all that often, but you should expect more hacking when the online user base is much larger.

No it doesn't, hackers just have no interest in hacking Nintendo. Do you really think Nintendo's online security/infrastructure is more secure than Microsoft's?

You should at the very least give the other 2 some time, I see very exciting things happen in the next couple years.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you. I didn't full on belly laugh, but I did seriously chuckle, and few console warriors can get me to do that anymore.

No, money is why Nintendo should go third-party. Read point three and the uproariously oblivious point four, above. Plus it'll be good for Nintendo too: going third party has proven to be a recipe for success in the near and long term. See: Sega, Atari, SNK, Hudson Soft...

In the future, perhaps, but right now PS4/Xbone are following Wii U's example of having a dry first year. I get that this is standard teething problems for a new gen, but all three seem to me less exciting than Wii/360/PS3 did back in the day. Maybe I'm just turning into a grumpy old man impossible to please, haha.