As I wrote in topic.

ok, thank you. I'm sorry, if this sounded like an offence.
Your game just feeds my need for Space Sims ;)

It is more like a "fuck you supporters" pack as a paid DLC before the game is even released (I don't see how that can even be legal). And discounting the base game 50% at the same time adds insult to injury. If you want to change the price structure going forward then fine but provide the full release game to people who already paid.

Lots of developers hire artists, that doesn't mean the art isn't part of the game. The way I see it early access is like a preorder, except you can play the unfinished game meanwhile. Except it turns out this isn't correct and you aren't necessarily buying anything in particular except what you get right then. It is worse than a preorder because at least you can get a refund if you preorder something and the developer decides to release day 1 paid DLC. Obviously there is also a risk of the developer not being able to finish the game for whatever reason (it sounds like GOG does some checks to limit this risk), however the developer simply deciding to charge more for the full released game is not obvious. You (and GOG) should be very clear about this in advance and I suspect you aren't because few people would buy under those terms.

I am going to avoid early access entirely in the future but please do the right thing and provide codes to people who already purchased the game.

As I said, I expected a full released game whatever you decide to do with it. I don't recall any detailed development roadmap and definitely not any mention of future paid DLC. I did raise an eyebrow at the number of DLC at the time, even though most were free, and that is part of why I got the Tungsten Edition even though I don't usually get non-flac soundtracks (the other part being "demo bonus"). It didn't promise future DLC but again I expected to get the full released game.

I purchased it in September, so it wasn't the full game for free then, although I actually purchased it before discovering the limitations (for the same reason I buy any game rather than pirating, I think it is good to support people making games that I like). I would love to see everything on the "bandcamp model" where you could play the game before purchasing. I thought you were doing something like that and it didn't occur to me that you might be doing a "free to play" kind of thing since GOG isn't supposed to be about that kind of thing. I played it a while for a couple of months and might have played a bit once this year. It is a decent game and I have recommended it a few times but I wouldn't call it one of my favorites. I've willingly paid for DLC on games with a bunch of content when they involve a substantial amount of work done after release and I avoid companies like Paradox that have endless trivial DLC even if I otherwise would enjoy the games. I just couldn't imagine that someone providing such an extensive demo would be one to nickle and dime anyone who paid for it.

Look at it from my perspective: you fully gave away most of what I paid for after I paid, then you want me to pay more for a small amount of extra content in a game that doesn't exactly have a ton of content to begin with, while at the same time you discount the base game 50% so that someone who hadn't previously purchased the game would pay the same amount for the base game + new DLC as just the base game cost when I purchased the game (the equivalent of the Tungsten Edition plus the new DLC was a bit more expensive than what I paid for the Tungsten Edition because the soundtrack wasn't on sale, but waiting to get the soundtrack the next time it was on sale would likely make that less expensive than what I paid). So on top of having a new paid DLC while still in early access you are asking me to pay more just for having purchased the game earlier in development. Please explain how this makes any kind of sense to you.

It is content in the sense of being something that changes the game, I did see it is just the portraits. I would say I am above average likely to like them better, although it is hard to say for sure. I'd guessing it won't make much difference to me either way, it will just be a bit different. I'd still be upset if it was something I was completely uninterested in.

It really doesn't, I already heard someone mention that it started as an April Fools joke. Many (hopefully most) developers if they found people unexpectedly excited about a joke feature would just put it in the game, no DLC needed. That is more or less the entire idea of early access as I understand it, to find out what a wider selection of players like about a game (if not for that it is just selling unfinished games). If you are then going to charge more for some of those features you should clearly state that in advance so those of us who aren't ok with that can wait to purchase until we see the full price.

Some people offering to pay for something can't speak for others who already purchased the game. You can easily take their money while providing it for free to everyone who purchased the game expecting to get the full released game. As I mentoned, you aren't even charging more to people who hadn't yet purchased the game since you simultaneously discounted the base game more, you are just charging those who previously purchased the game. You haven't even tried to explain how that makes any sense to you. I hope this may just be a case of not thinking things through and that you will think about it more and agree it doesn't make sense.

Obviously there is no technical reason why the game couldn't have alternate profile styles, either selected per game or enabled in the options (or both). I can't think of an example off the top of my head but I'm certain I've seen that kind of thing before. So you are just saying things are the way they are because they are the way they are. If you don't actually have an explanation I encourage you to think about it. If you are just unwilling to explain your reasoning publicly then that is what it is.