?????????

Your post is kind of... vague. I'll expand on all points.

1. Nintendo games sell Nintendo hardware, that much is obvious. However, Nintendo went through various periods in its history when they did what they wanted, sales be damned. The earliest example of this would be the lack of Super Mario Bros. 5 for the SNES. Back in the late '80s and early '90s, Super Mario Bros. was the biggest IP by far, having games that sold more than 10m copies at a time when 1m was already a big success. But instead of pleasing the market and releasing a sequel to the SMB series, there wasn't a new game until 2006 (New Super Mario Bros. for the DS). Said game sold more than 25m copies, clearly proving that there had been strong demand for SMB all along.

Other instances of Nintendo doing what they want are games like Super Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker, or the release of a console (Wii U) that was significantly different from its highly successful predecessor. Based on the Wii's sales (100m+), anyone with half a brain can conclude that the market liked the Wii Remote, but with the Wii U Nintendo treated the controller as if it had been a failed experiment, so it was relegated to the status of tertiary controller behind the Wii U Gamepad and Pro Controller.

2. I don't look at the gaming market in a black and white manner (i.e. there are only hardcore and casual gamers). The hardcore are a small subset of core gamers, but they are very vocal. Ignoring them won't hurt Nintendo, because the hardcore weren't going to be Nintendo customers anyway.

3. Nintendo games sell Nintendo hardware. Everyone who is honest with themselves wants to see software that is exclusive to Nintendo. Multiplatform games would only lead people to react with remarks like "I can already play those games on a platform I own, show me something interesting, Nintendo."

4. The biggest fallacy when it comes to Nintendo and third party support is the assumption that the most crucial thing is parity in everything with Sony and Microsoft. In reality, third parties tend to dismiss Nintendo regardless of what Nintendo is building, so the only way for Nintendo to not get ignored is to sell so much hardware that it can't be ignored. The most obvious example is the seventh/eighth generation because third parties continuously called for a Nintendo console that allows them to port games (read: it's not about sales, it's about specs), and when Nintendo had such a console, third parties changed their stance to "let's see how it sells first". In a nutshell, third parties will always complain about Nintendo, but if Nintendo wants to get third party support, the only realistic way to get there is to sell as much hardware as possible. That's done with Nintendo games, not by providing specs and a controller that third parties are asking for.

And what does sales history show? Nintendo's worst selling consoles are the ones that gave in the most to what third parties wanted while Nintendo's best selling consoles are the ones where Nintendo attempted to please the market.

Successful in quotations? And do you seriously want to claim that the restrictions Nintendo put on third parties during the NES and SNES were what third parties wanted? Why again did third parties go to Sega and later to Sony?

Look, if third parties had had a genuine interest to port their 360/PS3 games to Nintendo hardware, they had the chance to do so. Most of them refused, some of them outright. It doesn't matter that later on the XB1 and PS4 were more powerful, because the 360 and PS3 continued to get games for more than two years after the Wii U's launch.

You are incredibly naive to think that Nintendo could have chased Microsoft out of the market. Microsoft lost $4 billion on the original Xbox, yet they stayed in. For Microsoft it was not about making money from video games, it was about stopping Sony from creating a convergence box that disrupts Windows as the provider of all sorts of entertainment. It's only because of Xbox being a strategic defensive move to protect Windows that a $4 billion loss could be justified, because Windows brings in profits every year that are multiple times bigger than that Xbox loss of several years. As such, if the original Xbox had sold only 10m units and lost $8 billion, Microsoft would have still stayed in the market because Windows is so valuable. Nintendo's sales did not matter in this equation. It's also why Microsoft never made a handheld. Nintendo didn't threaten Windows, so they could sell as many handhelds as they wanted because it would have no impact on Microsoft's core business.

Successful in quotations? And do you seriously want to claim that the restrictions Nintendo put on third parties during the NES and SNES were what third parties wanted? Why again did third parties go to Sega and later to Sony?

Look, if third parties had had a genuine interest to port their 360/PS3 games to Nintendo hardware, they had the chance to do so. Most of them refused, some of them outright. It doesn't matter that later on the XB1 and PS4 were more powerful, because the 360 and PS3 continued to get games for more than two years after the Wii U's launch.

You are incredibly naive to think that Nintendo could have chased Microsoft out of the market. Microsoft lost $4 billion on the original Xbox, yet they stayed in. For Microsoft it was not about making money from video games, it was about stopping Sony from creating a convergence box that disrupts Windows as the provider of all sorts of entertainment. It's only because of Xbox being a strategic defensive move to protect Windows that a $4 billion loss could be justified, because Windows brings in profits every year that are multiple times bigger than that Xbox loss of several years. As such, if the original Xbox had sold only 10m units and lost $8 billion, Microsoft would have still stayed in the market because Windows is so valuable. Nintendo's sales did not matter in this equation. It's also why Microsoft never made a handheld. Nintendo didn't threaten Windows, so they could sell as many handhelds as they wanted because it would have no impact on Microsoft's core business.

Nintendo has no excuse for lazy/stupid execution during the GameCube era ... this is a kill or be killed industry, they needed to be no.2 that generation by a reasonable margin, getting beat by a latecomer to the business with no established 1st party IP was a joke. 

They could have done a lot better that generation if they had been smarter. Yes MS is a big company, but you can either cry about it and give up or execute, Nintendo didn't execute. There needed to be greater urgency and fight from them that generation and they simply did not show up. MS has tucked tail and gone running from plenty of business ventures when they get their ass handed to them ... see: Zune, WebTV, bing, and the most recent Nokia-Windows Phone debacle, as a matter of fact MS doesn't do that well in many things outside of their OS business at all. They are hardly some unbeatable goliath outside of their OS sphere. 

The difference is PS3 and 360 had an install base base of 150 million between them, Wii U had 0-5 million, third parties were right to shun the system, you can't show up 6 years late to the market and think you are going to get equal support. Even then Nintendo did get a fair number of the bigger IP -- Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Batman, etc. at launch, but that audience wasn't going to take such a machine seriously so late and the casuals had abandoned Nintendo already be then. 

Imagine if tomorrow MS launched a portable with specs about the same as a 3DS ... who would support it? Would you be surprised if it flopped? 

MS lost a lot of money with the original XBox because they made a stupid design deal with Nvidia where they couldn't drop the price of the hardware. 

Nintendo has no excuse for lazy/stupid execution during the GameCube era ... this is a kill or be killed industry, they needed to be no.2 that generation by a reasonable margin, getting beat by a latecomer to the business with no established 1st party IP was a joke. 

They could have done a lot better that generation if they had been smarter. Yes MS is a big company, but you can either cry about it and give up or execute, Nintendo didn't execute. There needed to be greater urgency and fight from them that generation and they simply did not show up. MS has tucked tail and gone running from plenty of business ventures when they get their ass handed to them ... see: Zune, WebTV, bing, and the most recent Nokia-Windows Phone debacle, as a matter of fact MS doesn't do that well in many things outside of their OS business at all. They are hardly some unbeatable goliath outside of their OS sphere. 

Even *this* gen, Nintendo probably could've beaten the XBox One with a year headstart and a reasonably speced machine.