Surely his point is that resolution/DR is "all" alot of people seem to care about. Personally I find myself in that position mostly taking landscapes and would probabley buy a D800 if I upgraded to FF(most of my investment is in EF-S lenses anyway) but it does seem to me that alot of amature reviews are focused on these areas to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
The net photographic community generally has a bias towards these areas IMHO, partly i'd say because its something that easier to quantify for users who'll never own or never use these cameras in situations were features like FPS and AF will be important factors.
Yes, the 'net is fixated on DR and resolution at the moment, but prior to the 5D3 announcement, much if not most of the talk revolved around AF. There was the occasional resolution debate, but many people wanted to talk about was how many AF points they needed. "Cross-type points" was the catch phrase back then, and pulling an arbitrary number of cross-type AF points out of your ass was en vogue 
Other common declarations:
"There's no way Canon will ever put a 1-series AF system in a 5D3."
"We'll be lucky if Canon puts the 7D AF system in the 5D3."
"Canon will never put the 1Dx's AF system in anything other than a 1Dx."
Welp, Canon proved those claims wrong, addressed the most glaring weaknesses of the 5D2, but now the hot topic is DR and Canon still sucks.
It was actually the pure fanboys who were doing all of the talk about how Canon would never do that and how dare you image to ever get nice AF in anything other than a 1 series.
So far 5D3 AF working well for me for one shot, def better than 5D2 and 7D, although I've only hit a subset of situations so far. I'm not quite sure about for macro yet compared to 7D and didn't test it for sports yet.
Anyway DR got talked about first since it was easy to measure and safe to talk about having never even touched the camera yet and it was kind of a shock that there was zero improvement, maybe exmor level would not have been realistic, but the fact that at ISO100 it delivers nothing better than 3 years ago shocked people into lots of talk. AF takes time to test out and you need the cam in hand for a while. But everyone had been mentioning how awesome it was that on paper they finally did something fantastic below the 1 series in terms of AF.
