I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.
This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).
For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free. You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.
Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".
Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.
This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.
The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.