From a financial point of view, I can sort of understand it. If you're familiar with Star Trek, a similiar thing happened. Director J.J Abrams said he was "never a Star Trek fan", and he made a really successful reboot film (and a second one that had a lot of problems, with less good reception, sound familiar?)
The first one worked exactly how Konami wanted it, and for all we know, 2 might have sold great aswell (but seems unlikely)
That's the thing with Mr. Abrams: he may not have been a Trek fan, but he obviously studied up on the source material and had enough respect for the old franchise to do a reboot that not only pleased most older fans, but brought in new ones, and all while still adding his own flare.
This guy couldn't even get the basic concept of Castlevania (badass family fights Dracula after fighting his slew of monsters) right, save MoF. (And I borderline felt that was a bone throw to older fans too.). He didn't know about CV and it showed: a LOT of things make sense now. He's like that movie director that makes a movie based on something and except for a few things, gets it all wrong. (Like the Resident Evil movies.). I stand by LoS would have been better as it's own title, away from the Castlevania universe: he could have had complete freedom to do as he pleased, without having to shoehorn elements of the old series to appease the fans.
Dare I say, I wish MS had been given the chance to do just that. Whatever this game was meant to be will haunt me now: if what he said was true, and he feels like trying to please fans instead of following whatever original idea he had like with LoS1, how would that game and story have come out?