Let's also look at things from a different perspective. If Apple advertised the iPod touch as a device that could play games, go online, and use all kinds of apps, yet when you got it only a couple of games worked and didn't work correctly, the browser was a pain to use, and apps were almost non existent would you say, "'you bought an iPod touch, be happy the way it plays music b/c it is the best at it"? No of course not. you would buy and iPod nano or a classic. You got the touch b/c it did these extra things and you paid a premium for it. Eventually the software would be updated but at the time you were expecting more out of the box. Especially when the company came out and said "It will have X feature".
Everyone isn't arguing that it is an amazing gaming device, it truly is. If Sony had never said a word about remote play and it showed up in 3 months we would be ecstatic. The unfortunate part is that they openly advertised it. Falling short of expectations is never a good marketing strategy. We all know there are a lot of bugs in the current FW. I have to reset mine around 3 times a day. But I still love the system b/c beyond the flaws it is still an amazing machine with a ridiculous amount of potential, including the missing PS3 remote play.
To be fair, they only showed that it was possible. They never said "This is something that will be implemented 100%".
I mean, sure, if they get pressured enough, they might do it. Again, I stick to that they showed it playing KZ3 just to show that it could do it.
For example, take a look at the 3DS and MGS:3D. That game was never originally planned. The tech demo they had of it "MGS: The Naked Sample" was only there to show off how powerful the 3DS was (Only due to super high demand did they decide to make MGS3D). So it's the same thing with Remote play of PS3 games on the Vita. For all we know, they only did that to show what the Vita was capable of.
There are lisencing issues Sony has to wade through before they can decide how much remote play they can do. Obviously first party games they can decide a lot more directly on what they will allow it to do, but all theose third party titles they was to talk to the dev's about it.
For example... 2K games is setting to release Bioshock"Infinity". would they want to build and release a vita title "Bioshock: A little sisters journey" if all the vita players can play inifinty already. How likely are they to recover Development Costs of a Vita title in sales. Is this a loss of revenue for 2K and Sony?
In the vane of first person and especially exclusives, Sony can only help themselves making games remote playable, but with third party they have to negotiate for that kind of feature. It helps Sony to have it, as more sales of PS3 and Vita units will be a partial outcome, but 2K games could care less about Sony's sales as their games are playable on the other consoles. They care about TOTAL (PS3 + Box + Wii + PC/Mac) console sales as that is their target demographic.
We have (most of us anyway) seen the youtubes of CFW's playing full games on the vita so it is possible, but Sony has a larger concern it needs to address before bringing in certain parts of the function set. A lot like the crackle in Canada issue over in the Home forum, Sony has to take into account the copyright and distro laws of that country beforemaking certain functions available.
As much as we would all like to point the finger screaming "Why hath thou forsaken me, Sony" there is a bigger picture. Vita will be getting more features and apps and abilities as fiscal and legal concerns are nailed down and beaten about the head shoulders. I am going to content myself to watch it grow. Until then... Anyone got some rare Tarot Cards from Uncharted they can make available on the black market?
See my view of remote play is differing from everyone else's. I don't want to go out and about and play my PS3 games. I just want to stay home and play. If someone else is on the TV, I can play on my Vita. If my coworker and I are playing multiplayer I don't want to break from the game, I want to sit on the crapper and continue to dominate a game with him. (sorry about that horribly disgusting visual). From a fiscal aspect of course a developer is going to not want a person to leave the house without buying another copy of the game. That just eats into the fact that no one would ever need to develope a game for the vita. This is why I forsee a home network enabled remote play. The game stays in house, it is just on a different screen. A majority of the posters here have even said they just want it so the kids can watch their shows while dad plays some PS3. Everyone is happy in house.