A few things need to be brought up about the L4D2 boycott, Jim.
The idea that L4D2 was boycotted solely over the fact that it was a sequel a year after the first is just plain wrong. Yea there were some people like that, but what most people were upset about, if you actually looked into it, was the fact that they said they were going to take L4D in the same direction as Team Fortress 2, and add extra content over time. There are videos and blogs of them talking about this, and was the entire premise of why most people bought L4D to begin with. They specifically said they were going to add new levels, new guns, new characters, and new monsters over time because they found that doing that keeps the community strong. They were basically saying "oh yea we'll add new content" as they were already working on L4D2 and had no plans to do so. Essentially, they were lying to make their game more attractive to sell more copies.
So, instead of just saying "well we have bigger plans for L4D", they kept saying they were going to put out free DLC, which they only released one very small map, then announced L4D2. Basically the exact opposite of what they said for months and months before and after the release of L4D1. Also, another thing to consider is the fact that L4D1 was a very small game to begin with, and most people felt that the purchase was only justified simply due to the promises of future content.
The other reason is because they said earlier that the TF2 model keeps the community strong, but L4D2 did the exact opposite, and what was once probably the biggest PC gaming community in history quickly dissolved to almost nothingness. L4D2 completely shattered the community and to say it didn't is just being ignorant.
Some people still to this day say the boycott was unsuccessful, which is also false. Valve openly said that the boycotters had "very legitimate complaints" and the game dropped in price very quickly, which means it obviously had problems taking off. Were not seeing a L4D3 anytime soon too, which shows that they're thinking twice about pulling something like that again, and the amount of "were sorry" DLC content they're adding to both L4D and L4D2 only came when the boycott started. Before that point the only DLC we saw (after over a half a year later) was that one very small survivor map (and even announced that was all they had planned until the L4D2 shitstorm came). Now there's probably something like 6 entire levels of DLC (counting the L4D2 DLC).
Anyways, the rest of your video I agree with. Most people don't have the balls to boycott anything, but say they will anyways to grab attention. I'm considering boycotting diablo 3, as I did L4D2, the always online thing just doesn't make any sense and I don't like the idea that if I get disconnected from bnet while playing a hardcore character that I may likely DIE and permanently lose my character, just over some lag that I cant control (which has been confirmed by blizzard). Diablo 3 should have an offline mode, bottomline. And the truth is that a lot of other greedy publishers are frothing at the mouth hoping we'll all just take this DRM and shut up, so that they can continue to pressure us into more control. So the success of Diablo 3 could affect the future of DRM as a whole, which is why i've been thinking so much about boycotting D3.