I think Pentax is wise to put a low priority on video, and this article by dedicated videographers explains why:
Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video - EOSHD.
If you really want to do professional-level video, you're getting into an entirely new world and market. The technology and infrastructure leap required could, I think, be compared to the effort to produce the 645D or the K-1. Then, once you've got the camera out, you need a whole supporting cast from 3rd parties—software, cine lenses, focus aids, monitor/recorders, etc etc etc.
If you look at Sony and Canon, they are producing cameras that are either dedicated video cameras (EOS C series) or video cameras first, still cameras second. Based on what I've read, the still camera physical form factor just doesn't seem to lend itself to serious video production, thus requiring a whole new line of cameras with a completely different set of priorities.
In our world of severely constrained resources, can Ricoh pull off an end-run and produce a class-leading video camera system? Not just a single camera, but a system? We already wonder if they can support the still camera lineups they have (Theta, FF and APS-C K-mount, and 645, to say nothing of the late q-mount). Could they really keep these up and produce a video camera system worthy of people investing in?
I think it is wise, as many have said already, for Ricoh to decide they will excel at still photography and spend their money their. It seems the professional-level videography ship has sailed and without a massive, full-comapny pivot, Ricoh does not have the resources in place to catch up. Does this limit their market for those customers who want to do both on the same system? Absolutely. Are they in a position to change that? I don't think so.
Would updated video features for the casual videographer be great? Definitely. I'm just not convinced that it's the best place to spend their limited money on.