Honestly, I think both sides have their merits.

Not one should be chastised for their views.

On a lot of levels, you'll need people like Envy that will speak up. At the end of the day, nobody knows how it feels to be the player, but the players themselves. They are the marketing commodity for most tournament these days.

That being said, everything Envy says has to be taken and evaluated individually. There should be a fine line between practicality and non-sensical. If it applies to the rest of the players and serves benefit over time, then re-evaluate. But to shut off someone's view as Envy as inconsiderate and ungrateful means that people are not allowing progress through views, albeit through a public means.

I take no sides on V1lat as well to be honest. True, a lot of what he says has some merits on it's own, cost wise. But majority of his argument is pinned towards Envy and the newer breed of players being ungrateful and should just keep quiet. Players like Puppey or older player that has been in the scene longer, travelling or sleeping in airport/road constantly being used as a reference is a very weak argument towards an improvement in the scene. Not to mention, the money injected towards the scene has changed substantially, so to just brush off Envy's argument as being childish and ungrateful is really weak in my opinion. That doesn't lead to progressive changes to the system, and it'll just ensure that the game stays behind the time.

Even as a CEO, one will know that business model changes all the time, and as such, this is one of those changing times and to compare old and new conditions is really immature way to approach things.