I think the main reason for this stigma in the past, is that the Nintendo 64, Nintendo GameCube, and Wii were designed in a very specific, idiosyncratic way. These three consoles were all designed around one thing, doing that one thing, and being that one thing for as long as possible.

Nintendo 64 - Designed to be a cartridge based system with fast load times based around 3D gaming and 4-player multiplayer

Nintendo GameCube - Designed to be a powerful, compact system with a unique design that was meant to just play games the best it could

Wii - Designed to be a newbie friendly standard definition system, built around motion controls that could entertain everybody

While these consoles could be beasts in these purposes, they struggled with being general, all purpose gaming platforms for every game type, which is something PlayStation, Xbox, and even Nintendo's handhelds all excelled at, and its a big reason why Nintendo home consoles lacked substantial third party support for so long. For all the Wii U's faults, making an effort to be an all-in-one gaming system that supported multiple gameplay styles the best it could was one of the few things it got right. If you ignore the screen, the Wii U GamePad was for all intents and purposes, a normal controller. On top of that, you could also use the Pro Controller, Wii Remote Plus and Nunchuck, Balance Board. The Wii U was many things, but lacking in controller options isn't one of them.

I am going to go with "Myth".

Nintendo designs a hardware platform to meet certain price/performance/feature targets, which is no different from Microsoft, Sony or even other historical platforms like Atari, Sega, Panasonic, Fairchild, Mattel, Coleco, NEC, 3DO, Fujitsu, SNK, Pioneer and more.

That price/performance/feature set then either appeals to a development studio... Or it doesn't.
Nintendo hasn't purposefully excluded outside development studios.

Nintendo's internal development teams are given what they get, they don't really get the option to choose what hardware they develop their games on and need to do the best with what they are provided with... Which is no different from Microsoft/Sony today.

After the GC if we talk about home consoles only they no longer cared about power, or basically accepted that they can't compete. so after that yea i would say they no longer cared about third party support becuase most AAA developers wanted more powerful consoles, and those games could not be ported to the much weaker hardware. I don't care for handhelds so i have no opinion on that.

The synergistic approach to hardware and software is well known from Nintendo, but I would flag "only for Nintendo games" as false. It's more "mostly for Nintendo games", which makes sense. Since the 90s, they've had a bumpy relationship with 3rd party developers and publishers. A lot stems from olden days, when Nintendo had all the power on the market and adopted a strict regimen of rules. However, after the SNES, a lot of the trouble is also down to their hardware choices - it's a sort of chicken-and-egg proposition: Nintendo made hardware more suited to present their own brand of gaming design, or, Nintendo realized they would be left much to themselves in keeping their machines afloat.

Regardless, I would say that "Nintendo makes consoles mostly for Nintendo games". Many members on this very forum will maintain that horsepower isn't an important factor in a console, I would be inclined to agree. The problem with that sentiment is that developers think differently. Nintendo's solutions and ideas are sometimes difficult for 3rd parties to adjust to, prime examples would be the Wii U controller, which became a hindrance more than anything, and the format choice of the N64, which severely limited storage capacity for games (and lost them Final Fantasy, among others). In addition, Nintendo were famously slow on the ball when it comes to supporting UGC (they even battled it outright for a long time), smaller developers, and offering middle-ware solutions, as well as fairly mainstream tech features. With the Switch - we're seeing a form (rather: forms) and function that's more traditional, especially compared to the Wii and Wii U. This, paired with them making an actual effort around UGC and Indie and other smaller efforts, has helped a great deal, and support has improved. The greatest challenge with the platform is the internal storage and relatively small size the game format offers (32GB max), but it's a huge improvement overall.

In contrast, Sony and Microsoft adopted a strategy pretty much the opposite; build and sell machines purposefully designed to appease developers and consumers alike. Formats, tech, controllers, dev-kits, marketing aid for smaller developers, and the very hardware components chosen, make for an easier time. Is it a bit boring? I think so. But it's been a successful strategy. As above, it's also one built from need, historically speaking, both Sony and Microsoft had weak 1st party offerings. On paper, this is no longer true, but in Microsoft's case, we're seeing 1st party software struggling to make an impact in spite of the massive purchases they've made in the past few years.

I don't think the Wii U GamePad should be lumped in like that. As I said, for all its faults, it was a pretty standard controller out of the box, it's one of the only things the system got right. Developers didn't have to do anything with the second screen if they didn't want to, and could just throw a map or mirror image the tv screen if they wanted. The problems with the GamePad were more so that Nintendo never really proivided any practical use for it throughout most of the Wii U's life, so it became pretty useless.

I think a better example would be something like the N64 and GameCube controllers or the Wii Remote + Nunchuck. Those were devices that were great for games that were designed around them, but weren't that great at being all-purpose standard controllers.

These were the actual downfall for third parties on Wii U. The system was hobbled with a slow, and ancient PowerPC CPU from the GameCube era that lacked support for most modern development tools and APIs. The 3DS had the same problem as well. This made Nintendo hardware, kind of a chore to support for a lot of devs that generation.

I mean the Switch basically has all the features of the Wii such as motion control with the Joy-Con and what not. The main benefit with the Switch is that out of the box, you have a classic controller setup, which is something the Wii didn't have. And as you mentioned, supporting modern APIs and development tools was one huge improvement Nintendo made with the Switch. Though the efforts to support indies actually started back in the 3DS/Wii U gen (even further with WiiWare and DSiWare, however limited they were).

Bolded: This is true, to some extent. But the main problem was Nintendo's woeful online infrastructure, which is the bread-and-butter of Indies and small developers.

I agree that the Wii-mote is a better example overall, now that you mention it. But I did also find that most developers had trouble utilizing the Wii U remote in any meaningful way. I remember Zombi U having inventory screens on the controller, but it just made it an extra step for me. The PowerPC issue was one that I brought up often when discussing these matters during the Wii U's lifetime, but it was usually countered with "if developers want to make it work; they can". Which sort of ties into the horsepower portion of it all - we don't necessarily think like developers. The Wii U's choice of components was a big deal. I also remember the PS3s Cell Processor, where a unified developer front dubbed it a hassle to work with due to its structure.

Personally, I never owned a Wii or a Wii U, mostly due to the control schemes, pricing of peripherals and accessories, and the rather lackluster 3rd party support. With the Switch (bought mine about a year after launch), my only gripe is the hardware and performance issues. The machine itself, and its form, is good (I only play mine docked though). Especially with the Pro Controller, it's a real blast.

The Nintendo eShop for the 3DS and Wii U were actually pretty good for their time IMO. They're way better than the Switch's eShop if that's anything for you. And the eShop that gen was also considered a huge improvement over WiiWare/DSiWare at the time, which had some awkward file size and work-from-home restrictions.

The thing about Nintendo's gimmicks is that third parties aren't going to make effective use of them until Nintendo themselves sets an example. Look at the Nintendo DS for instance. A lot of developers weren't quite sure how to use its features like the touch screen, dual screen, mic, or wireless in its early years. It wasn't until Nintendo released Nintendogs, followed by Mario Kart DS, Animal Crossing, and Brain Age that laid the ground work for what could be done with the DS' hardware. Shortly afterwards, more and more third parties began using the DS' features in ways that surpassed Nintendo's efforts. In fact, most DS fans will tell you that third party games regularly outdid Nintendo's own releases on the system.

Wii U never had any defining title that justified the GamePad for much of its life, and by the time it did (Splatoon and Mario Maker) it was too late. So if Nintendo doesn't have any good ideas, why should other developers? I also think Dual Screen gaming was a concept that only truly made sense for the DS systems. On that hardware, both screens were small and low-res, so the extra display really helped with freeing up game play and UI real-estate. Plus, both displays were within your field of view, so it was easy to glance back and forth between them. With the Wii U, you can only focus on one screen at a time, which makes having two screens kind of superfluous in a home console environment, especially since both the GamePad screen and TV are more than large enough to house most on-screen elements and menus.

And yeah, PowerPC for Wii U was a huge issue, far more than being under-powered. I feel like people on forums constantly over estimate how much developers actually care about having the most powerful hardware. Yeah, more power is always nice, but having a simple architecture, with an easy-to-use, modern development environment are much more important to devs IMO. You can just look at the Switch. Yeah, it's under powered compared to PS/XB/PC, but you can still make modern games on it pretty easily. They just won't look or run as nice as on more powerful systems.

Just turn it around. Third party developers don't make games for Nintendo consoles. They just got stuck back in "Sony PS2 days" and can't adapt.

The Nintendo Switch is the same thing that it has been since it was released 8 years ago. It's sold 140 million units. What do developers actually want?

It's not like any games are actually using the "power" of PS5 or Xbox anyway (maybe GTA6 will be the first?). I think developers plan on getting bought out by Microsoft/Sony more than actually making and selling games these days.

I'd say, depending on the hardware, many third parties not only make games for Nintendo hardware, but also make existing games better on virtue of the hardware features. And they've done this for all of Nintendo's most successful systems.
Some examples include:

• Street Fighter 2 (SNES)
• Wizardry (NES)
• Just Dance Series (Wii)
• Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition
• Scarface (Wii)
• House of the Dead (Wii)
• All those Wii exercise games
• The World Ends with You (DS)
• The 3DS Sega remasters

Then there are other games that appeal to niche audiences in the overall fanbase that benefit from Nintendo features - such as portability in Switch games (which is why I have several hundred hours on Witcher 3 for Switch).

I disagree. The cartridge system with fast loading time and 4-player multiplayer are just remnants of their previous console, the SNES had these things. The major thing for the N64 was indeed the 3D. And that it was designed around. But it wasn't idiosyncratic. In practice the N64 introduced or popularized concepts that are now commonplace in 3D games, like the analogue stick for control in 3D environments or the lock on feature (Zelda OoT). This was very influential, which shows that it wasn't peculiar or idiosyncratic. N64 just wasn't successful, but it was very influental.