sadly I can't edit this post for a improved reading-comprehension anymore, because the signlimit still puts a noose around my neck.
I'd send you a redacted and proofread version via PM, mostly because I find this way too entertaining than I probably should, but I doubt you'd be interested in that.

Here's something I read recently that might be applicable to our current conundrum. It's from Zizek's book "Violence".

"What if, on the contrary, such blindness, such a violent exclusionary gesture of refuseing to see, such a disavowal of reality, such a fetishist attitude of 'I know very well that things are horrible in the Soviet Union, but I beleive none the less in the Soviet socialism' is the innermost constituent of every ethical stance"

He is writeing about people supporting the ideas brough forth in "soviet socialism", feeling rightous and ethically sound in supporting it, while also knowing full well of how many people were repressed and ultimatly killed by that same Soviet state.
You can apply this to everything, like, say, supporting this company based on the notion that they "are fans of pathfinder/hard games", disregarding the imidiate reality of this shoddy consumer-unfriendly mess of a release.

And yes, the man writes his whole books in that style. I kind of like it. Then again, I write as convoluted as him. Just with less knowledge and concern for the actual grammar.

Weak show, GoG. Weak show on that signlimit!

Can you guys just agree that both points have merit? you really just go in circles, both refusing to make any concessions.

One says it's a good game and he is willing to wait for it to get fixed. It is a valid position to hold.

The other says he did pay for the game expecting a finished product and is upset it didn't turn out so. It is a valid point as well.

Everything is just derivative of those two incompatible positions you both hold, and as those two are core positions to each of you, it won't go anywhere, unless you both just acknowledge the position of the other has merits without changing yours.

A true mediator.

I can agree to that. I feel like I did nothing but explain the views I outlined in the first few posts I made, anyway. Over and over again.
+ I find it a lot more interesting to see the other dude react to what I write, at this point.

Anyway, if you sweeten the deal with a icecream for each of us, I'm willing to shake hands and we can all continue to have fun on the playground.

Otherwise he stays smelly and has cooties!

Time will answer the questions we put forth anyhow. I just hope it won't be like with the new torment. Where people say the only reason it failed was that you had to read so much. Failing to realize that it was bad because of the poor quality of that, which you had to read.
Just like I hope, if this game fails, that the conclusion won't be that it was too hard for the audiance, but simply badly executed.

Good day to you, sirs!