The thing you don't understand is that we care more about the Vita than about MH. Additionally, the game would just be a lot better on Vita than on the inferior 3DS.

I'll believe it when 2014 ends and there's no news of a 4G for Vita. Until then, I'll just chalk this up to typical PR and the rumored Nintendo exclusivity contract.

 The issue behind this is clear: developers are worried that if the system does not sell, neither will their games, which can take thousands to make one game for Vita...

That's subjective, I could say I like more MH on 3DS because of 3D.  Also the same can be applied in the Vita, by that logic a PS4/NextBox/Wii U would be better than on the inferior Vita.

In theory, but would you? Everyone I know including myself just turns the 3D off now.

So you don't approve of that conduct? Which conduct is that? the one that does not release games on the vita or the company that chooses not to release games on all devices. I have a funny feeling you approve of third party companies shafting nintendos home console.

Then maybe no console should have third party games since a PC is superior to all current and soon to be released consoles. Well mine is anyway. Or maybe resident evil already had a handheld launch; therefore, capcom is only making the superior home console versions. Plus again from a buisness stand point the 3ds is the superior choice. If the roles were reversed I'm sure capcom would skip nintendos HH for the vita.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I wouldn't expect a Monster Hunter to be announced this side of a Vita sales explosion.

Can't say I blame Capcom for taking that position either, but then, fortune favours the brave, and the most "big" publishers avoid Vita, the better the openings for the smaller publishers and indies.

You could say that, but then there is the issue of having two analogs, which clearly puts 3DS at a disadvantage. These are not handhelds, so can't be compared here.

PC is a different thing than a console, this argument is just rubbish. There is no business advantage in releasing a game for all platforms (Wii U included) and just ignoring Vita. Sony made Vita in a way that makes porting easy and cheap, so thay can't say that the game wouldn't earn the money back. 3DS is in a better position now, but nothing is stopping them from releasing multiplats.

Of not releasing games at all on Vita. They release multiplats on all other platforms, just ignore Vita.

I can see a reason why companies don't release multiplatform games on singnifantly inferior consoles with different architectures (was the case with Wii, isn't the case with Wii U right now, but will be once PS4/X720 enter the market) in which the manufacturer has pretty much killed their target core market. Not releasing multiplats in this case doesn't equal to outright ignoring a platform - just to make it clear. crapcom is doing just that right now. I don't own a Wii U and I'm not interested at all in buying it until it drops to 150 Euro, but I'm fairly certain that it will do well starting this Christmas, no matter what 3rd parties do. It's a Nintendo 1st party console to me anyway, I won't be interested in multiplats on Wii U, won't buy a single one, just like I didn't buy a single multiplat on the Wii - I'll buy it just to play Zelda, Metroid, Mario Kart, ZombiU, etc. I think that there will be a decent number of 3rd parties that will release multiplat or even exclusive games on Wii U anyway, cause they won't be able to afford the jump to next gen.

Nintendo decided to bring such fate upon itself by releasing such underpowered hardware. They follow their own path and have to bear all the consequences. The Vita is a different case, cause you can't argue there are any technical reasons why a game can be on 3DS, but can't be made on Vita. You also can't say that the Vita gamer isn't interested in games like RE or MH. I don't expect exclusive games, but I do demand multiplats, especially if they release a game on every single other platform on the market.