Easy money makers with good games. They just dont care about it.

Not easy money at all. You just don't know how profitability and risk works.

It would've been easier if they didn't deliver it as this inconsistent product.

An accessory, more expensive than the platform it's for.
Wired, when Quest showed successful VR is wireless.
So many features and possibilities, but the first party launch title was an on-rails spinoff.
No backwards compatibility, when Quest 3 is fully backwards compatible.
No PC compatibility (until they effectively killed it), when Quest can do it both wired and wirelessly.

It was a joke of a product with amazing technology.

None of the things you mentioned broke the product. It is an amazing product at a reasonable price point for what it delivers. If it was any cheaper it would be a subpar device and that would have been worse. As we speak, some of the best games of the generation can be played on it. But gamers dont want VR (overall), the inconvenience is prohibitive and the games aren't shiny enough until you put the headset on yourself. I think this will be the last we will see of VR on console for many many years.

Whilst I agree with you, I recall a very similar argument when PSVR1 was released. If that's the case, we're still in the same situation as the 80s - VR technology ever improving, but the reality is it doesn't seem to be catching on amongst the masses.

remote play is handy if the game you want to stream is on your 5, and not already in the cloud service. I found that certain games may say they are streamable, but only if they are actually still in the service. Case in point... I saw that in my list of games in my library was Jedi Fallen Order. I wanted to give that a whirl but it said it was no longer available. I looked on my 5 and sure enough its still there and so I can play that using remote play, but not cloud direct play. I think its because it was a game I claimed from PS+, and it has since been removed. So it is not 'officially' in the cloud streaming list even though it shows as one I could stream from my library.

So I use the actual cloud streaming side for games I do not have installed on my 5. And it works great in my home. I have not tried it from another location, so I dont know how well internet access is outside of my home network. I get ridiculed for saying this but I use the cloud streaming services of both XB and PS as a way to guage interest in fully installing or even purchasing games. Its easier to load up the game via the cloud because you dont have to sit there and commit time to download/install.

If I like what I'm playing... I will do the full commitment and even purchase. If people dont look at this as trying to replace, but instead as a means to compliment the systems... they might find it benefits them more to use these services as a taste test / try before you buy sort of thing. I dont know why that always seems to ruffle people on here when I express how i use them, but it does.

@darthv72 - that's fair, thanks for the response.

I mainly play JRPGs or similar games on the portal. Currently remote playing DQ3 and it's great. I did play Spider-Man and FF7 intergrade, just to see how it feels when I first bought the portal and it played just fine. But to me, those games are better enjoyed with bigger screens. So games like DQ3 and Unicorn overlord, to me are better suited for portal because you don't need those quick responses from the controller and they are not graphics heavy that you need TV/monitor.

I did play Ghost of Yotei streaming on Portal today and again it played great. No input lag or anything but again a beautiful game like that to me is better enjoyed on a bigger screen.