That’s one side of the coin, now what about the other side? How is it fair to people that payed more than you, some even double what you did, and yet you get the same things as them?
I forgot how I found it, but at the time I was excited for it and backed it. Then I kinda forgot about it till a while later I got an email that I had access to this game I didn’t even remember backing at the time.
The more I think about @Lepoard200’s comment, the more I think I’ve figured out a way to make everything fair. Charge the same amounts as the backers would have cost.
If you want the base game with kittens, $30.
Want it with dogs too? $50.
And so on.
Then people that missed the kickstarter could still get the benefits, FOR THE SAME PRICE.
I thought that was a given! 
imo that is a bad solution. Kickstarter payers still dont have their unique pet. Others have to pay too much for a pet.
Imagine at steam you have a DLC of $20 for a useless pet-dog. That is insane. It works for kickstarter, but not for selling DLC.
The only solution I see is to create a DLC package after release with pets in it. But OTHER pets. Free or a couple of $ I dont mind.
Maybe not on Steam, but certainly Origin 
I agree that the cat/dog should be reserved for Kickstarter backers. Perhaps, rather than being a DLC, the other pets you suggested could be unlocked through some achievements system in the game? Payed DLCs are quite unpopular, and if they are going to be free they might as well be in the game to begin with.
On a different note, I imagine as soon as the Kickstarter pets are added, someone will find them in the game files and make them into a mod. I hope Radiant will be able to stop this somehow, as it would render the Kickstarter reward useless.
I wasn’t thinking of it like that, but more like games that have;
The only problem with the idea of DLC for this game is that people can mod in anything they can think of, so DLC for pets seems kinda pointless…
I think an important thing to remember is the reaction to Planetary Annihilation’s initial Steam pricing. Introducing Kickstarter pricing in a Steam environment will very assuredly result in backlash and spite. It’s rather typical for the Kickstarter crowd to drop $60+ on a game that doesn’t yet exist in hopes of one day getting the game with a small extra. Joe Average Steam browser is going to see that $50 puppy version and think something is horribly wrong, he’s going to think the game is going to try to milk him for extra dosh by locking out content behind ludicrous paywalls.
Even if the pets are priced reasonable at like a dolllar or something, any DLC being available for a game still in EA at all makes people wary. They’re going to see that pet DLC and wonder what the DLC plans are going to be. I know I tend to avoid games with DLC because I’m a completionist and I don’t like not being able to get content.
What I would do is bundle the pet DLC with the soundtrack and artbook. A digital deluxe edition is going to make it seem like a much better value and reassure players that this is probably going to be the only DLC of its kind, it’s a bonus item to sweeten the deal rather than a primary moneymaker.
You must HATE The Sims series then.
I could get behind this, but it’s pricing would have to be equal to the kickstarter goals.
Isn’t the price supposed to lower to $24.99 once Stonehearth hits Steam Early Access? Since a kitten was the $30 reward, selling a kitten for $5 makes sense. (It would be even nicer to give all us early buyers a kitten, but I’d happily spend $5 on one.)
But, yeah, a $25 dog does seem kind of pointless.
[quote=“Helmic, post:28, topic:12520”]
What I would do is bundle the pet DLC with the soundtrack and artbook.
[/quote]Makes sense.
No matter what way you put it, one party will feel left out. There can’t be fairness, because those two groups have very distinct, contradicting ideas of “fairness”.
Kickstarter backers paid more for one or two reasons: First, eye candy, second, to support the development of the game with some extra bucks. I would say that they mostly did it for reason one. They did it because they gained something unique, something limited. They basically paid for the right (if you can call it that) to have a kitten, or a puppy, in their game.
Everyone who was “late” to the party of course feels left out, as that often happens with such limited offers. They may want the stuff too, but haven’t heard of the Kickstarter back then, or didn’t have the money or didn’t think the game was worth an investment or whatever.
So now you have a major conflict: If you make the pets available to all players, for free or a cost, it’s basically a huge “Screw you.” to all backers who paid money in the assumption that this was an exclusive, limited offer. If you don’t do it, the latercomers will complain that they didn’t get a chance. I would personally say c’est la vie, life isn’t fair and there are more important things you should complain about not being able to have participated in.
No kind of price balancing will fix that. As soon as you grant access to them, they’re basically worthless for Kickstarters.
To be honest, the whole Kickstarter thing is, or was, or will turn out to be a PR nightmare soon enough in my humble opinion. I think it would be best to left the situation as-is, there’s no need to throw oil on the fire.
absolutely true bit I still think a middle way solution will be to create a different pet (different to kickstarter pets) to go free in the game.