I wished they have never included the video features but focus on improving image quality instead.This is likely a false premise, and it has been well-hashed here. There is very little to suggest that including video has negative impact on stills
But there is: For video, esp. with sensors that don't scale down to video res as well as the 5d3, you need a (stronger) anti-aliasing filter which at the same time reduces stills sharpness - that's why Nikon has two versions of their d800.
There is a potentially legitimate argument there; however I think there are few people who print so large that the AA filter makes much difference in sharpness. Also, I think the D800E is targeted at those who want to go MF but can't afford it. If the AA filter is the main concern, Canon doesn't need to forgo video entirely, they can just offer versions of the 5-series and 1-series without AA filter. Problem solved?
And it's still true that any model of DSLR without video will be a niche product, and will cost more. Again, think of the D800E: it costs $200 more to get a camera without the AA filter. Shouldn't it cost less?
I'm not a big video person: I've shot maybe 20 minutes of video on my 3-year 60D, but video is here to stay. If you have specific needs, well, that's understandable, but it won't do any good to curse video.