What if I went to deviantart and looked up a bad piece of art and then responded to the artist something like this "Wow what a piece of garbage why would you draw something so terrible like that? Wow so freaking bad, learn to draw seriously". Would you say that was passionate or abusive? And I get that they shouldn't disregard their potential source of income, but seriously, they need to be making a game that THEY want to play, not cater to as many people as possible, that can ruin games. Dead Space 3 would've been a lot scarier if EA/Visceral Games weren't so set on catering to people afraid of survival horror games (despite the previous 2 being survival horror). Maybe most people don't like horror, so freaking what? Those people have so many other bloody games to play, why can't those of us who like scary games have games that cater to those desires? Seriously I have no sympathy for people who complained about dead space games being too scary.
And the guys at Anet can say "like our game for what it is or play something else" because it's their game and they want to make it for certain people, not everyone. They should be designing a game they want to play, not try to please as many people as possible, because they have no moral obligation to try to appease the majority or anyone because it's a source of entertainment not something serious. The people who don't like that can look elsewhere. It only becomes a problem when barely anyone is playing their game, and lately, I've seen crap tons of people on a regular basis on my server (each server right now is either high or very highly populated, at least when I checked a week ago, but I don't know the server player limit), so they must be doing something right for a large amount of people.
Games should be made to be an entertaining experience, not to cater to the largest group of people to maximize profits, is what I'm saying.
Also it is pretty interesting that he clearly copypasted a lot of what he said from a previous post, but that doesn't mean he doesn't mean what he said, he could've just thought it was easier to copypaste then manually retype.
edit: I forgot to add that I mean people who want changes to the design of the game should find another game, not those who just want more options, there's nothing wrong with that.
I agree completely with what you say about Dead Space 3, which was more of an action-oriented shooter than any kind of survival horror. Seems as if that series is going the same way as Resident Evil, and as you say, this is because EA (and, I would think, to a much less degree Visceral) is trying to maximize sales instead of producing a good game in the niche that they already have.
But that is also the mistake that ANet did, and that they keep doing, and that is why people are so angry with them. They chose to make GW2 into what it is to appease as many as possible. Almost every single design component that they had in GW1 has been replaced, and it's very obvious that it was done to appeal to a greater market. Of course, it worked; but what they sacrificed was the niche that they were in before. A lot of people loved that niche and they are quite frustrated these days, the game that they thought would be yet another step forward abandoned everything and became yet another generic MMO - of course they are going to be very agitated about it, and that does mean the occasional rude slip. But the message is still there.
And they should listen to that message. But they don't. Instead they listen to the mass market that wants to turn survival horror games into action shooters, which is the same mass market that wants to turn every MMO into WoW.