Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, ‘The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance’; You would say, ‘Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment’
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be pleasantly surprised by the next update that promises to solve all the problems, but you must be surprised. Can you flip a fair coin and get heads 10 times in a row? Sure, that is only a 1-in-1024 chance, it must happen all the time in a world with many coin flips. But if someone is taking your money based on that coin, after 10 flips, you should be looking for a two-headed coin.
“They have learned their lesson” is rarely a safe assumption. If someone did a lousy job last time, you must raise your probability that he will do a lousy job next time. Otherwise, you are taking bad work as evidence that good work must be coming. Do you take good work as evidence that bad work must be coming? If you take both good and bad work as reasons to believe that good things are coming, you are shaky on concepts like “evidence” and “reason.”
To end on a concrete example, before turning it back to Mr. Russell, Age of Conan had what was by all accounts a miracle patch at the end of beta, and perhaps several post-launch. At it still had that quality we have come to expect from Funcom.
I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.