Nintendo really fucked over third parties during the NES times, with all of their strict rules to ensure that their own games would perform better.

Now I've got you paranoid

The focus on Nintendo's past in this thread shows that this argument in terms of Nintendo is no longer viable. If you must reach to two or so decades ago for evidence then your evidence is useless in our current times.

Considering the meat of this argument is about Nintendo, even though the question seems broader than that, I would say there is no argument. Now-a-days, third-parties ultimately choose their fate. A modern example: there are multitudes of third-party companies that say they want to support the Switch and they perfectly well have all the tools to, yet there is still a lack of major third-party releases even though many admit the venture would seem to be profitable. They can/could've already, they say they want to, but the decision whether or not to make money is left up to them.

TLDR: Fate and possible revenue is left in the hands of the third-parties themselves.

Hmm, where do I currently fit on your intelligence scale? Who am I in the same rank as? That'll help me make my decision.

He's mad because his remaster of a 20 yera old game didn't do as well  when he released it like a year or so after it came out everywhere else. He made it only for 8GB Wii U's....you know something you can expand with a HDD and there was more 32GB systems out there anyway? 8GB wasn't around long. Yes I agree 8GB system was dumb still he could have just released it like many other devs have in it's actual form. Even Nintendo ignored it.

Nintendo fans don't respond well when you delay your version well after other versions. Switch first year might be the exception as it's new so ports and devs learning the ropes is fine.

Well. this is mostly a quesiotn of image.

Playstation has the image of third-party-machine. That's why people bought PS4, even if the launch-games werent much more or better than WiiUs or Switch. Many remasters and late ports. But customers expected it having 3rd-party-games so they bought it. And devs had games in the pipeline, because they expected customers to purchase the system.

Nintendo does have the image that is doesn't have third-parties. So customers wanting that are skeptical and wait to buy the system. And developers are skeptical and support the system with late ports and keep their main games for the moment without port. That turns into bad sales for existing third-parties and only few games, so both groups see their suspicions come true.

The image was formed years back, in NES-SNES-N64-era. But images are difficult to change. It takes years.

But look for example on Playstation and japanese games. This image has gotten cracks. For over a year japanese games did better on PS3 than on PS4. The japanese base only slowly transformed to the new system. Also japanese gamers prefer handhelds, and after Vita will Sony probably not offer any. So this image is threatened to change for japanese games. Probably the reason Sony pushed for Monster Hunter.

It can be a console manufacturers fault for 3rd party to fail, but it's gonna be some very specific circumstances producing that result. Such as...

...a game just not working on the console (not enough buttons leading to odd workarounds, raw power isn't up to snuff, etc)

...1st party dropping a megahit too close to a 3rd party title

...maybe some weird restriction kills interest in the game (online is stupid bad for an online-focused title, maybe overabundance of enforced censorship, some other system-specific BS like '1080p or bust' is forced on a title, etc.)

...or the online store for the console make it hard to find content outside the chosen big titles (or hard to find content period).

As far as promotion of games go, I think it'd behoove any console manufacturer to have an active social media presence highlighting each release of the week. Maybe a stable of YouTube series, each devoted to a style of game (retro, arcade, RPG, competitive online, etc.) starring enthusiasts of that particular corner of gaming.

So much wrong in this post. Yokai Watch and Professor Layton are third party games, Nintendo just publish them outside of Japan. Minecraft isn't a second party Sony game just because they publish it in Japan... 

Your Resident Evil 4 example is also terrible. The Gamecube barely sold over 20 million units while the PS2 sold over 150 million units, of course Resident Evil 4 was going to sell better on the PS2. RE4 still sold good numbers on the Gamecube however. Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate on the 3DS became the best selling Monster Hunter game in the West, with over a million copies sold. 

What big third party IP's are you talking about? Nintendo almost never gets them, obviously they can't sell well then... 

Rayman Origins released in November 2011 when the Wii was practically dead already. Not even The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword sold well on the Wii. 

Nintendo best years were the 80s.After that they seem to struggle everyday and every year. Today are difficult days for consoles games plus the Switch is questionable at some points. So that arguments are hard to digest but actually true.

1) Yes, they we complete bullies against 3rd parties with the NES. That and the insistence of using expensive cartridges on the N64 drove them to other platforms. From that point, gamers that were enticed by 3rd party games moved to other platforms. Nintendo has to go out of their way to offer stuff to 3rd parties that make them attractive to them (and I mean, do way more than Sony and MS do right now). Offer dev help, remove royalties for 1 or 2 games, etc.

2) Yes, they started in Japan with a huge box, when Japanese people hated huge electronics. They created a huge controller (partially fixed with a less huge one) that was a no go for Japan. They didn't make an effort to get games for this public. That's pretty much it. Like I said above, they would have to go out or their way to entice JRPG support and attract the JRPG crowd back. But, unlike the above case, this one isn't really worth the effort.

3) Yes. Do you mean the situation where games had a worse performance than X360? Their fault because they made a hardware that was too hard to develop for with very few gains. If you mean the exclusives flopping, well, their fault too. They wanted to push the PS3 and started to pour out tons of games to see what would stick. MS was more effective back then, less exclusives but more hits. Both cases were fixed with the PS4 and an improvement in their understanding of what the market wants.