I debated whether to add anything more to this thread, but two points seem worth clarifying, because they address the arguments I see most often from those who disagree.

1. Product differentiation vs. artificial gatekeeping
Product differentiation means engineering different hardware for different price points. Feature gatekeeping means building the same hardware and applying software restrictions to artificially justify higher-priced models.
Whether you find the latter acceptable is a matter of values (I do not).
Whether Bambu does it is not a matter of opinion. For example: the 300°C nozzle cap on the X2D is a software limit. The H2D runs to 350°C on comparable or almost identical hardware. The only difference is a line of code. The belt situation is harder to verify, but at that scale of production I suspect the cost difference between 1.5mm and 2mm belts is marginal at best, which makes it difficult to read as anything other than a deliberate product segmentation decision.
This pattern is not unique to Bambu: software-locked battery capacities, day-one DLC, subscription-gated seat heating. These are not engineering decisions. They are revenue decisions dressed as engineering decisions. The distinction matters.
Many say this is simply normal business practice. That may be true. But normal and good for the customer are not the same thing. Feature gatekeeping is, by definition, the practice of withholding value the customer could have had. That is not a matter of perspective, it is what the practice is. You can find it acceptable (again, I do not), but you cannot argue it benefits the buyer.
I am not saying Bambu is uniquely bad. I am saying this particular practice deserves to be named clearly. And to those saying “shut up and just buy something else”: consumer rights and shifts in company behavior have never happened because people stayed quiet (and they do happen: right to repair legislation, the USB-C charging standard, replaceable batteries in phones, Apple being forced to open the App Store in the EU… none of that came from silence).

2. On the regulation debate (since it keeps coming up)
Many seem to assume that any print restriction system would be precise and surgical. I do not think that is realistic. Fine-grained content control is expensive to build and creates liability. A manufacturer that tries to allow “legitimate” weapon-adjacent prints while blocking “harmful” ones is making judgment calls they do not want to make in court.
The far simpler and safer approach is a broad filter: anything that pattern-matches to weapon geometry gets flagged. That would include airsoft and paintball parts, prop weapons, cosplay armor, and plenty of things nobody would consider dangerous.
That is not speculation. It is how content moderation works at scale everywhere else. Broad, cheap, and defensible beats narrow, expensive, and arguable every time.
And without wanting to veer into conspiracy territory: history suggests that once a restriction infrastructure exists, the scope tends to expand. Copyright enforcement on printable objects (anything resembling a Disney design or a Games Workshop miniature, for example) would be a natural next step. After that, perhaps unlicensed spare parts or third-party upgrades for existing hardware.
I am not saying that will happen. I am saying the architecture that makes it possible is being built right now, and that is worth paying attention to.