Aside from the use of the term remaster, I don't recall anything they said which would have lead one to expect a significant graphical overhaul. It's also being sold at $40, which is a bit cheaper than most "remasters" from that era IIRC.
So, I'd agree that they would have used another word in the title, but on the whole, anyone who does even a slight amount of research will be getting what they expect, so I'm not seeing a problem in that regard.
Like, taking myself as an example, I loved the game on Wii U, and I might have purchased it again if it had significant upgrades. I had more than enough information to determine that it didn't have enough new content to warrant purchasing again. Since I had enough info to make an informed decision, I don't really see the harm done by using the wrong term.
Not really. Many remasters were cheaper than $60 and included all DLCs for the game. Some others were part of a collection and therefore a little more pricey.
$40 for a lazy port of a single game that doesn't include any DLC (because there wasn't any as far as I could find) is pretty poor. But hey, by spending that amount of money you're elegible to buy the upcoming DLCs from the Kickstarter stretch goals.
Pretty much every Wii U port to Switch has been at least 50. I'm pretty sure all of Sony's PS3 to PS4 ports have launched at full price. Aside from games that are significantly older, I can't recall many remasters launching for cheaper. I'm sure there are some, but that's the exception.