I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling feature that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.
As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass?
Not really. If you want to stay with cheap but very good solutions like the 18-55 IS on crop, you cannot find an FF equivalent to that, since Canon stopped the development of the slow EF zooms (still, the really cheap 28-135 can easily beat the more expensive 15-85, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=116&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1
). But the "cheap" EF-S zooms on crop come at a price - slower (in eq. terms) and resolve less. Nothing wrong with paying less for a system which offers less but - you get what you pay for.
Same thing with telephoto - you will pay more for the same reach with FF but you will get more. Actually, you do not always pay more: you can get a longer but slower (but the same physical aperture, i.e., equivalent) lens, when available. Or you can get an 1.4 extender.
Going to the more mainstream FL's; with FF, you may end up paying much less
for similar performance, and you can get performance (wide open, etc.) that you cannot get with crop at any price. The 135L, for example, performs significantly better on FF than the 85L on crop; the 200/2.8 on FF beats the 135L on crop; the 35/2 IS on FF would beat the 24LII on crop, etc.; and in all those examples, I am comparing lenses allowing (about) the same amount of light, i.e., equivalent ones.
So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more
expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do. This does not mean that there is no place for crop bodies on the market.