I think Jeff is an awesome name. I can't even imagine a better name, to be honest.

Which comes back to; do you honestly believe Sony is that stupid to loose Monster Hunter over Ad-hoc party?  Capcom reps have said pretty illogical things that can only make sense if Nintendo paid a hefty sum for handheld exclusivity.  Capcom's reasoning for no Monster Hunter 4 on Wii U contradicts Monster Hunter 3 G.  No Resident Evil: Revelations on Vita's reasoning doesn't make sense since the 3DS version should never have been made by their logic.  On top; the rumour about the deal, the rumour about the Monster Hunter 4 delay which would bring the release date closer to contract's lapse time.  Monster Hunter Frontier G being announced a little after Monster Hunter 4's release, which also coincides to the end of the contract's date.  I mean Monster Hunter Frontier G for Vita could have been announced closer to the 360 port of the game instead.  Plus the game's a port and could have been released a lot earlier.

I have Killzone Mercenary and I'm extremely disappointed with it.  I'm not gonna get puppeteer.  Lone Survivor?  Is that a Persona version of something?

Here's what platforming looks like in Velocity 2X (spoiler alert: looks fucking sweet):

Yes,i honestly do. I think SCEA was too stupid to know what Monster Hunter was, passed it off as a cheap PSP upscale and didnt care. And that is also why obviously MH4 already comes with online play from the get go on the japanese version.

I also found out that MH3 was beeing developed for the PS3 and was later changed to Wii because of high development costs on the PS3 (early years of PS3). If your theory could hold, it would be because of that. But we are speculating as sony never said anything about it and we only know what we were told. Despite that, it was on Sony's best interest to have cooperated with capcom given how important Monster Hunter is in Japan. I am sure that whoever made those decisions for Sony didnt have a clue of what they were doing.

Like I said, Sony Japan would have taken over if this seriously was the case.  And you're going to completely ignore all the mixed messages that contradict each other from Capcom when it comes to their handheld titles involving the 3DS?

Edit:  You stealth edited now my response doesn't look too good :(. 

Let me get my response ready for your other paragraph... which I can't even do damn you VGChartz!

Anyways about Monster Hunter and Nintendo vs Sony.  What can Sony say?  When has any dev ever talked about money hats?  Think Sony could have just come out and say "Yeah Bioshock is coming out to the PS3 next year, don't buy the 360 version" or any other title that MS paid for?  There's really enough evidence to infer that Nintendo paid for Monster Hunter 4 on 3DS only.  Like I mentioned, when asked why Monster Hunter 4 isn't on Wii U, Capcom said Monster Hunter as a franchise has to be exclusive.  Which contradicts Monster Hunter 3G (They actually said that at an event promoting Monster Hunter 3G).  They're excuse for not having Resident Evil Revelations on Vita?  The screen was too small and the audio isn't good enough.  Svensson actually teased that there was a good reason too.  Yet by that reasoning Resident Evil Revelations should never have been on the 3DS in the first place.  Then the rumour about the handheld contract Capcom signed with Nintendo came out inbetween all this.  They also mentioned Monster Hunter 4 was delayed to bring timing closer to the contract's end.  What was announced a few days after Monster Hunter 4's release?  Monster Hunter Frontier G on Vita.  Why not announce it earlier?  Why not announce it a little after the 360 version?  Hell the game could have been ported and release way before Monster Hunter 4 even came out.  Contract's over; Sony and Capcom can start talking again about Monster Hunter.  Plus I found it very odd that Capcom would show off Monster Hunter on PSP quite extensively at the PS4 reveal and to make a big point about that, when they had Monster Hunter 4 coming out for 3DS.  It could have been the ultimate FU from Capcom, or Capcom was trying to let fans know there's still Monster Hunter coming out with Sony.  I'm also sure Sony looked over Capcom's presentation and would have seen the slides before hand, so I doubt they would have let that through.

@darknight
waste your money on sly4(you can even play a darkknight there),great game
and Escape plan(better take a first look as it is very special)

Sony japan had nothing to do with the decision. Capcom USA negotiates with SCEA. This was before the widespread of Twitter and the Sony reps like Shu. The reason MH3G was on the Wii U was mainly for us westerners and to add online play beeing as the 3DS is a more difficult console to add those features in (given the technology constraints). We embrace home consoles in general while the japanese do portables.

That is also the reason why RE:REv came out for home consoles. Capcom concluded the game failed on 3DS/portables, beeing the first proper portable RE and decided to port the game for home consoles where the series sells millions. Obviously they learned they were wrong on that one and now we can look at the 3DS version as a sucess considering.

We're getting side tracked though. The facts here are that Sony blocked MHP3 HD for the PS3 in the west. This gave capcom no choice but to go with nintendo. The why's and the how's pale in front of the facts. Thats what happened and shouldnt have happened.

Monster Hunter is the same story as Dragon Quest.

Dragon Quest7? was the most succesfull part of the series but since than :no more dragon quest for Sony.Why?Is SE no longer interessted in huge sales?

Was Capcom not interessted in sales while releasing  MH exclusive for 360 (both guys who bought a copy are still playing the game)?

No!-just like with ff7/8/9(it could not be released on n 64 because of cartridge limitation but on Saturn and Dreamcast)The only difference maybe that sony saved Squares ass after the Final Fantasy-Movie desaster.