Of course that's not a real prisoners dilemma, because the payouts are wrong. In the real prisoners dilemma Defect-Defect gives you a better payout than Cooperate-Defect. So when your opponent pre-commits to defect, you must defect.
Like the post says, it's a variant.
The distinction is illustrated with the common application of the prisoner's dilemma to cartels. Cartel members can tell each other they will restrict production, but they do not observe each other's factories. So even if they agree ahead of time to reduce production, that is cheap talk... and they can produce whatever they want.
It's quite similar to this game show, though as a previous commenter pointed out, the relative payoffs are different.
For example, in the Prisoner's Dilemma you might get 0 years of jail time if only you defect, 1 year if you both cooperate, 3 years if you both defect, and 10 years if only the other person defects. Then, knowing that the other person will defect it is still in your best interest to defect as well.
In this challenge, if you know that the other person will defect you automatically get $0, whether you defect or not. In that case there is no particular reason for you to defect (except out of spite) and you are better off with the hopes that your opponent will keep his promise than with nothing.