Probably because it was noticed too late and they didn't want to delay the patch for fear of backlash which has inevitably backfired into even more backlash than they originally would have got from delaying it.

So you mean, between: - be open about the issue, and prefer to not release a broken patch - go lazy: it's broken, it's unintended, but... Hey... Who cares. We"ll just apologize. They chose the second one? For me, the first one is the professional approach, especially if one critics throughout all the last years has been poor communication. They have been open about it this time, acknowledging there is an issue: that's a plus. But they had to be independently of the path chosen: release or hold. Hold showed they cared, release gives a message of slopyness imo.