Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.
Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.
This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.
Well, it is a pretty valid reason for the company. I know next to nothing about the game industry, but it's not hard to imagine that the development stage is very expensive in its own right. It's not like a couple guys got together and wrote a 300+ page rulebook, playtested it, tweaked it based on playtests, formatted it and got it laid out with illustrations, and released it as a beta without getting paid somewhere along the way. If they were going to scrap any part of it they would have done so pre-beta.
All the more reason to wonder what set them down that road in the first place, given that it did indeed cost money to develop. Was there really a clamor for an all-wound-tables-all-the-time revision?