(1) I'm not talking about this thread, but the argument is brought up on Twitter and Youtube often by persons not caring about Switch or Metroid in the slightest.
(2) The whole argument is based somehow on the idea, that 2D is somehow cheaper or something. But the reality is, 2D gameplay and 3D gameplay are just two different genres. New Super Mario Bros and NSMB Wii sold about 30 million copies, because the 3D Mario releases before just aren't the same. Nintendo then milked it to death so sales fell. The situation for Metroid is similar now. There was no 2D Metroid in nearly two decades, just Metroid games in a different genre (Metroid Prime). These are not the same genres, as Mario Odyssey and Mario Kart are not the same genre. The idea that 2D is bizarre, but explainable, as many publishers over the last years pushed the idea that graphical fidelity is innovation, because they lacked ideas in gameplay innovation. But the reality is, that 2D games are valid and distinct to 3D games. And similar to 3D games you can make simple and cheap ones or polished and expensive ones. So the idea that a game is not worth full price because of 2D is broken. I would say that a fully 3D game like Skyward Sword has a much harder way to explain the pricepoint than Metroid Dread. Because it doesn't add much. It is the same game. Every instance of FIFA makes incremental changes and new roster, but besides is the same game. And EA ask for full price and microtransactions on top. Metroid Dread is completely new game and looks quite polished. Full price for that is fine.
1) Oh, ok then
2) 2D are cheaper to produce, but that's not the point. The point is the perceiving value of a 3D game is overall higher than a 2D game, you can bring the 2-3 Nintendo games the are exception to this rule, but it doesn't change the overall market perception that 3D games are the true blockbusters in the industry. Maybe for you 2D game worth the same as 3D games, but I assure you not everyone share this view.