I still see "Not having to buying somewhat expensive non-EF-S standard zoom and comically expensive longer glass" as a huge selling feature that is worth driving up the price of the 7D2.
As much as many folks on this forum believe there is a not-so-subtle attempt by Canon to push all 'gear spenders' into the FF column, isn't there also value in selling a very pricey rig that obviates the need to buy new glass?
So in many situations, the crop body forces you to buy more expensive glass to get close (but not quite) to what FF can do.
In some cases, the more expensive glass offsets the greater expense of going FF altogether. And in some cases, you can actually make do with a cheaper glass. For example, don't you think Canon can charge few hundred dollars more to the birder who can now make do with a 500mm instead of a 800mm? Of course, he will not get the same quality, DoF, precision, etc. in a 7D vs a 1Dx/5DIII- but he might not need it, or might not want it, or might not be able to afford it. Sure, he can use FF and crop, but even then he would be paying more anyway, wouldn't he? Given his situation, it might not be an option! So, in theory it is possible to up-sell an APS-C camera because it will reduce the overall cost. At the end of the day, going APS-C IS a compromise in IQ- whether for the sake of money, weight, frame rate, etc.
Each person's preferences are different- otherwise there would have been no landscape photographers in this forum, they would all be lugging medium format cameras in search of better IQ.