The problem isn't the price point, but what you get for that price. From the video, it looks just the same as the original, and I definitely wouldn't pay $30 for that.
One of the problems with game development is that consumers aren't always very good at judging what they're getting (in terms of quantity, I'm not suggesting consumers can't be trusted to decide whether they like something).
A game with one repeating background, versus a game with a whole range of varied backgrounds, can be order of magnitude cheaper to make. But typically this will be reviewed as "crappy graphics" or "boring art", and the more expensive version will be panned for being too expensive. Sometimes crappy graphics won't matter, sometimes it will.
From the video, there is no comparison in terms of development resource. There is much much more art, many more frames of animation, much less smoke and mirrors in the engine. I can understand why the development budget is $2m.
But I have a horrible feeling that most consumers will be like you, and not see that, and not think that all that effort is worth it, or that they've put much effort into the new game at all. And a good chunk of them (not you) will be very entitled about it, about not getting it for free. The reality of game development, unfortunately.
I only looked at the gameplay. The graphics would only have entered into my decision if they were horrible. I'm a long-time incremental game fan and I've played a ton of them. Most of them have pretty bad graphics, and that's okay. The incremental portion, especially the choices you make (what to upgrade, when, etc) are the interesting parts.
So yeah, I expect a lot of incremental gamers will view it the same way.
And gamers that aren't fans of incrementals are going to be even harsher on the gameplay.
