Hmmm, I found the bit about immersion quite interesting, is it possible for a 2d game to be "immersive"?. The article got me thinking about what my all time favorite games are and what dimensions they took place in. The Wind Waker always comes to mind and that game was very immersive, but hardly realistic. Although, then the question remains on what is "realistic"...
I think a better term for games that are well loved is probably engaging. I would personally rather play an engaging 2d game than an immersive yet tedious 3d game.
As far as value and which market is worth more I feel Nintendo games that were referenced in the article as bringing a resurgence to 2d is; while notable, not the best comparison due to the fact that the original titles such as Mario Bros. were 2d. In my opinion this has created a weird notion that games "go" 3d and in a timeline it makes sense. We had Mario Bros eventually got to Super Mario 64 and then the resurgence of 2d with New Super Mario Bros. More recent experience as noted in the article is that most times it is quite clear when planning a game whether or not it should be 2d and therefore should not affect the asking price for a game.
Also, video games are a mash up of art and technology and sometimes things just work. I guess what I am trying to convey is that 3d games being a newer technology than 2d games has caused a disconnect in the way things are created and whether or not it is a good disconnect is arguable. Nintendo loves to do those 2d moments in a 3d game effects, stuff like Paper Mario and smaller details in other games, Odyssey comes to mind. What would the video game world look like if 3d came before 2d?