Already explained several times in this thread. You're circling around questions that are long done.

1. Considering how eager you are to accuse the devs of cluelessness (repeatedly), your apparent lack of understanding of development processes is almost funny. Migrating changes between different forks of the same source, which then have to be wrapped in different ways to account for the distributors' different systems, and of course need to be tested as well, is - I agree with you on that - not a herculean effort, but it isn't child's play either. It requires resources which were (in this case) needed elsewhere, for understandable reasons.

2. You're mixing things up. "By the end of the month" is the announced duration for the arrival of the 1.1.2 patch, not the announced duration for the migration of the already existing 1.1.1 patch to a different system.

I did not only read the patch notes, I also played through the entire game and know pretty well what they refer to. That's precisely the reason why I think that you're grossly overdramatizing things on a level that, sorry, borders ridiculousness. Let's look at the substance of the points you mention:

- "Bug fixes". Yes. The patch fixed some rare bugs that could occur in the game, but none of them were showstoppers, some of the grand total of 12 entries in the bugfix list even aren't really bugs at all. In fact I don't remember ever reading about users having run into these bugs in the official forums. Patch 1.0.2 was important because it fixed bugs which made some levels unplayable no matter what you did. Patch 1.1.1 is far less crucial. You're moaning about not having fixes for some obscure bugs which don't even seem to affect the vast majority of people. In fact I couldn't even tell if those bugs really affected anyone outside of Steam, can you?

- "Additional content". What exactly? In the patch notes that you linked to and about which you smugly asked whether we actually read them, none is mentioned. I see information about the remixed "easy" mode, but where exactly do you see "additional content" there?

- "New languages". Yes, two of them. In a game that shows text in the menu only, that shows no text during gameplay at all, that even provides gameplay instructions in the form of textless signs, and in which the characters "speech" consists of gibberish, the introduction of Russian and Japanese is of course a major addition that should be moaned about when you don't get it immediately. You're not really wanting to be taken seriously, do you?

- "Improved performance". Yes. Improved performance in the DX10/11 mode. I played the game in both modes (DX9 and DX11) and didn't notice much of a difference. People with low performance in DX11 could switch to DX9 before, and can do so still. Do you really want to see this as a crucial change?

- "New Menus". Yes, two of them. You can now change controller settings in-game instead of doing in in the configuration utility. I'm sure you're constantly redefining your controls so you absolutely need this ability present in the in-game menu. You also have new volume controls. Using Windows for volume control is too hard I guess?

You most certainly are. Note that I'm speaking in the singular, and I suggest you start speaking for yourself as well. You're continuously trying to dress yourself as someone who speaks for a whole group of people while continuously listing complaints that no one apart from you is even making. In a previous post, you already posed as a group speaker and stated that "some of us might want those languages" - show me the people clamoring for Russian and Japanese menu texts in a game that's 99% text free, please? You also said yourself that "it's more about the *principle* of the matter", which pretty much shows where you're coming from. It's not the _actual_ bugfixes that you miss (because the bugs were obscure to begin with), it's not the _actual_ Russian and Japanese that you're missing (because you can play the game in English just fine), it's the _principle_ that someone already gave other users a non-crucial patch that's delayed for you. I'm sorry, but yes, you're butthurt - majorly so.

(As a side note, in the same post I just linked, you also said "if a game needs patching, and you've not yet delivered that patch (nor delivered it on time), then what you certainly do not do is release more paid content." Again, this is something that might make sense on a rhetorical level, but everyone who was ever part of a development team will immediately spot the naivity of the statement. When your engine developers are working in crunch time on a release for a new platform, and your level designers have nothing to do, what do you suppose should happen? Should the level designers learn engine programming in a 24h crash course so that they can port changes between different distributions? How is that supposed to work? Should the level designers spend their time twitching thumbs so that people who might feel butthurt don't get angry at the release of new content?)

I don't know how many signs were there that people on GOG actually were waiting for such announcement, but independently on that, this is one point I give you. The communication of BFG leaves things to be desired. I'll even give you something more to moan about and tell you that the last time I checked, their community management was handed over to an intern. I think BFG is currently underestimating the positive impact of good and professional community management, and the negative impact of a lack of such. With better communication, they might have been able to prevent you from getting into a state where you grossly overdramatize everything possibly negative about them.

That said, I was in a similar situation a couple of months ago. I own the game on GamersGate, and the version there was at v1.0.1, which contained a showstopper bug that made it impossible for me to progress. Patch v1.0.2 was already released elsewhere. I'm not fond of sitting around moaning though, so I contacted them and explained the problem. They explained why patch v1.0.2 wasn't released on GG, said that they would of course release it but that it might take a bit of time due to limited resources, and gave me something which enabled me to play the game _with_ the 1.0.2 patch in the meantime. A while later, patch 1.0.2 appeared on GamersGate as promised. Problem solved.

In the time that you spent writing all your posts here, you could have easily done the same, and would probably be playing the game in v1.1.1 by now if that was really important to you. But that's the thing, the patch itself does _not_ seem important to you. As you said yourself, it's the "principle" that got you riled up. And I'm sorry, I have little sympathy for people who prefer to sit around moaning about "principles" instead of taking steps to actually solve the problem.

Look - beyond all those walls of text, it's really very, very easy:

1. There is a patch that users of the DRM-free version will receive with a delay.
2. This patch does not contain a single crucial element.
3. In case that someone _does_ need the patch (for which I see no evidence so far), or just really really wants it (which is conceivable), and does not want to wait, it would be a good idea to contact the devs and ask them for a solution. I did that when I had the same issue earlier, others did so as well, and the problem was solved in all those cases.
4. Obtaining a patched version this way would require far less effort than writing all those walls of text.
5. If you complain about the lack of said patch, don't do the obvious thing to solve the problem (contact the devs), and instead keep moaning and writing walls of text which require ten times as much effort, then I can't help you, nor can I really take your complaint seriously.

Anyway. Some individual points warrant addressing:
I have no recollection of that statement, but if they indeed made it and weren't able to meet their own deadline, then I agree that they should have informed their audience about this. However, since your posts make it really difficult to separate between facts and rhetorics, I would like to ask for a link to a place where they made that statement?

I don't think I attacked you personally. If I did, I apologize. I _do_ strongly reject your argumentation, with good reason I believe, because it is silly, pretentious, childish, and does nothing to achieve the goal that you claim to have. That does not mean I don't respect you as a person.

That depends on how you define your problem.

If your problem is that you want to play the patched version, for whichever reason (as I said, there are valid reasons for wanting that, even though the patch is by no means crucial), then the obvious solution is to contact the devs, explain your predicament, and ask them for a solution. Worked for me. Worked also for others.

If your problem is that you can't get over the fact that another community got that patch before you, then neither I nor BFG nor anybody else can help you. Nor does constantly moaning about the situation, or starting your own personal crusade.

Funny - Whenever I tried to communicate with them, they responded. They always answered my questions - sometimes it took a bit of time, but I found their answers friendly and helpful, and they definitely solved my problem.

How did you try to communicate with them, and to whom did you talk?

I mean, you wouldn't just sitting here, spending your time lamenting on a third party forum about the lack of communication while not trying to actually, you know, communicate with them, would you?

All backers who backed more than 25$ can now download the DRM free backer version including the soundtrack of the new titles. thumbs up for BFG :)