I agree it is a lot easier to take his latest video more sympathetically if you haven’t seen his earlier video.

I think it comes off as oppositional instead of being helpful in the way you describe because SKG is already more flexible than he lets on in this new video. I mean he says in the video a couple of times over that this is how “he would do it”, and that “this isn’t the only way”. But that just means that the difficulties and scenarios he brings up isn’t really in the scope of SKG, and that the kind of preservation he wants to see isn’t the kind of preservation that SKG is aiming for. But by presenting these scenarios in the general case, he gives off the indirect impression that the preservation itself is more difficult than it needs to be.

Yes, the game corporations are presenting these more restrictive preservation scenarios because they want to paint this problem as being too difficult to solve, while Chet (I imagine, given his background) is presenting these scenarios because he believes it will be of genuine benefit to the consumer, but but ultimately they are both opponents of the more flexible requests laid out in the SKG movement.

Plus, he (like a lot of Valve employees) are pretty gung ho about the free market working itself out, and mentions that punitive restrictions don’t work and that the game publishers should be partners in the effort and not enemies, so I can’t imagine he would get along well with the lot of the people in the SKG movement just on an ideological basis.