A.) The original series implied that Peter was the instigator, so OMIT was a retcon. B.) Based on what I know of the characters, neither of then would've even considered the deal, much less taken it, so there's your character assassination.
Yes and no, I'd say. Remember, no one wanted OMD in the first place (even today, it's considered one of the worst Spider-Man stories ever penned; even fans who think that BND was the best thing to happen to the franchise don't seem to like it). Also, a lot of that stuff, like Spider-Man loosing his secret identity were specifically done to pave the way to OMD, so the deck was kind of stacked ("see we need this to happen"). Besides that, pretty much the totality of BND did not need OMD to be told. As far as new stories go, I'm not sure that most of the new stuff we're getting even belongs in Spider-Man, so you may understand that I don't feel that anything has been improved and, in fact, has done a great deal of damage.
Fair enough. However, the voice that Slott gave Ock is one the things that I really hate about his writing.
Okay, however, if what we're getting is the "new direction," then the cost was too high.
For some of us, that twenty-year status quo (or other status quos like it) were hardwired into the franchise; part of the "Read-only memory" in the computer, if you will. Opinions will vary of course, and it could be a generational thing, but I, as a Spider-Man fan, am sickened by what it's become. So, bear in mind, for some of us, it's just just a minor change in storytelling; Spider-Man itself was changed into something else.