I've owned several high mileage vehicles (over 300k) including Toyota 22RE, 3RZ, and Chevy LS with their original timing chain. Now that I think about it, does the LS even have a tensioner or chain guide?
From an enthusiast's perspective, a chain is probably preferable, because it tends to give you some warning before it fails - you might hear a rattle at idle, you might have problems with starting or misfires, you might get a check engine light and an EBD-II code from the timing sensors. That's a much less scary prospect than the potential for a sudden and catastrophic failure of a timing belt.
From a manufacturer or dealership's perspective, belts have some clear advantages. Unless there was a manufacturing defect in the belt, they'll almost never cause trouble if replaced according to schedule. That has obvious liability implications - it's not their fault if the customer ignores the specified replacement interval, but it potentially is their fault if a chain wears faster than expected. BMW, VAG and Jaguar Land Rover have all recently settled class action lawsuits related to the premature failure of timing chains.
Previous gen GTI was a belt. Garage told me they preferred belts because people know they need to replace those. People aren't expecting to be told your chain needs to be replaced plus it's much more expensive and labour intensive.
Never heard of Honda having problems with chains, though. Some of their motorbikes even had gear driven cams! (VFR I think).
They are by no means immortal, but, by design, should have a much longer lifespan than belts.
> Virtually every engine I know with a chain ends up either regularly failing early [..]
But I have no idea which early-failing models OP is referring to, as the engines I know about where quite reliable. (As in 1e6+ km reliable, with chain maintenance per manufacturer guidelines.)