First Steam, Then Patreon: Why This Business Model Makes OMSI 2 Bremen-Nord a Low Point of DLC Culture for Me!

New work may cost money. That is not what this is about.

Before any wrong impression arises: I have absolutely no problem paying for new content. If new districts are created, additional routes built, timetables prepared and countless hours of work invested years after an add-on’s release, then that work may of course cost money. If a major new Bremen-Nord expansion costs five, eight or ten euros, I can live with that perfectly well. No one can seriously demand that a product released in 2017 be expanded with new routes free of charge for all eternity.

My problem begins somewhere entirely different. Bremen-Nord was developed by Projekt Bremen and published and distributed as a commercial OMSI 2 add-on through Halycon. Halycon explicitly names “Projekt Bremen” as the developer on its own product page. The clear division of responsibilities was therefore visible from the outset: The actual development lies with the project or developer, while Halycon, as publisher, handles the commercial publication and official distribution.

The same principle also applied to later updates. Halycon explicitly reported back in 2024 that the developer was continuing to revise Bremen-Nord. Version 3.20 in June 2026 was also developed by the developer and subsequently delivered free of charge to all owners through Halycon or Steam. In the announcement, Halycon explicitly thanked the developer for the work on this update. It included, among other things, the new Bremen-Nord-2026 map, an extension of route 90, new buildings and objects, an electric depot, revised timetables, Chrono events and further technical improvements. The performance of the entire map was also said to have been optimized.

That was precisely what made the model fairly understandable up to now: The developer develops, the publisher publishes and distributes. As a customer, I buy the product through this official distribution channel and subsequently receive the regular updates created by the developer there as well.

Yet just a few days before version 3.20 was released, the post “BREMEN | Way forward”appeared on Patreon. In it, the developer announced that further Bremen-Nord development after patch 3.2 would also run through Patreon in the future. As justification, he referred to the many unpaid years of development work and wrote, in essence, that buyers of Bremen-Nord support the publisher, rather than him directly as the developer, with their regular purchase. The corresponding post from June 5 is still listed in the project’s official Patreon history today.

And that is exactly where I draw the line.

Of course the publisher earns money. It is the publisher.

Let’s try to make it as simple as possible. Anyone who publishes their product entirely themselves can theoretically keep a larger share of the revenue directly. However, they must also handle distribution, marketing, stores, platforms, reach, customer communication and many other things themselves. Anyone who deliberately works with a publisher, on the other hand, uses that publisher’s structures and reach. In return, that publisher naturally earns money from the product.

We do not know what specific division of responsibilities and financial arrangements exist between the developer and Halycon. But we do not need to know that for this criticism either. The fact that a publisher has an economic stake in a product it publishes is, after all, not a surprising system error. It is the purpose of this business model.

That is precisely why I consider the publicly stated justification highly problematic. If the economic agreement with the publisher no longer seems attractive years later, then this business relationship between the partners involved must be reviewed or renegotiated. The customer has long since fulfilled their part by that point. They bought the product.

Let’s deliberately imagine this in a completely absurd way with a car. I buy a Volkswagen from a dealer. Volkswagen organizes distribution, marketing, the dealer network and service, and naturally earns money from this vehicle. Two years later, one of the developers involved contacts me and says, essentially: “Thank you very much for your purchase. Unfortunately, this primarily supports the manufacturer and not me directly. You will therefore get the next expansion for your car through my private membership channel. Naturally, you must already own the vehicle.”

Of course, a car is not an OMSI DLC. The comparison is not intended to establish equality, but to make the logic visible. If I no longer like the division within the business model I chose, that is initially not a problem my existing customer has to solve.

And I find this arrangement particularly strange toward the publisher. The capabilities of a publisher, the official distribution, Steam, reach and a customer base built up over years are gladly used for the commercial product. When that same customer base is later supposed to spend more money, the publisher’s involvement in the sale is suddenly cited as the argument for why further monetization should now run more directly.

To me, that looks like cherry-picking from two business models: using the advantages of the publisher model for publication and reach, but going as directly as possible to the customer for later monetization.

We explicitly do not know whether Halycon agreed to this approach or is involved in it in any way. Perhaps the entire arrangement was fully coordinated. My criticism is therefore not directed at an alleged breach of contract, but exclusively at the publicly communicated logic of this business model from a buyer’s perspective.

The purchased add-on becomes the ticket to Patreon

This problem becomes even clearer as things progress. In June, the developer announced on Patreon an exclusive early access to upcoming Bremen-Nord updates . Shortly afterward, a locked pre-patch for Bremen-Nord actually appeared there. Patreon displays the corresponding post as exclusive members-only content with the file PATREON_BREMEN-NORD-Update_Vorab_24062026.zip.

With purely early access, I could still say relatively calmly: Okay. Anyone who voluntarily gives the developer additional support may try out an upcoming regular patch earlier. As long as the same content later reaches the buyer through regular distribution without additional payment, it is essentially a classic supporter bonus.

But development has now moved on. The Patreon history contains several posts in July about the construction of routes 91, 92, 94 and N7. At the end of August, a post finally appeared with the fairly unambiguous title “Bremen Nord 2027 / Patreon Exclusive Available!”. The post is locked, contains the file Bremen_Nord_Patreon.rar and can be unlocked either through a membership or as an individual post.

At the latest at this point, a simple question arises for me: Which version of Bremen-Nord is actually the regular commercial product? The version in my Steam library? A later update appearing there? Or further development described as Patreon-exclusive?

With a classically sold commercial DLC, I should not actually have to ask myself this question at all.

Support or already a second distribution channel?

I have absolutely nothing against Patreon as an idea. Someone creates something, fans like their work and voluntarily say: Here are five euros, keep going. Great. That is support.

But as soon as a specific file, version or expansion is accessible only after payment, this relationship changes for me. Then I am no longer paying solely out of sympathy or gratitude, but because I want to receive specific content. Then I am functionally a customer.

There is nothing wrong with that to begin with. It should simply be viewed accordingly: At that moment, Patreon is no longer exclusively a digital tip jar, but also an additional distribution channel.

I have significantly fewer problems with this in the case of a completely new standalone project. If it is communicated from the outset that a new product will appear through Patreon, everyone can decide in advance whether they accept this distribution channel. The situation is different with Bremen-Nord, because an existing product has already been sold commercially by a publisher for years. Another monetization layer is now being attached to this product.

And that is precisely where the real conflict lies for me.

It becomes particularly critical with a product that is still not technically perfect

Perhaps this model would bother me less if Bremen-Nord were now, in my view, a completely finished product technically. In my personal experience, however, it is not. There are still areas where performance can drop significantly, and crashes are also not entirely unknown to me in connection with the add-on.

This is expressly not a claim that Bremen-Nord constantly crashes on every computer. Systems and settings differ considerably. Fairness also requires acknowledging that the developer continued working on precisely these points in version 3.20 and that Halycon explicitly mentions further performance improvements for the entire map.

But that is precisely why the boundary between product maintenance and new paid development work is so important. A genuinely new map may cost money. A large new district may cost money. Extensive new routes can also justify being a separate paid product.

By contrast, I see bug fixes, performance corrections and necessary compatibility adjustments for a commercial product that is still being sold differently. If I bought Bremen-Nord through official distribution, I continue to expect this basic product maintenance there as well.

Not distributed across multiple payment and version worlds.

The community draws a fairly clear line

For this commentary, we deliberately also asked our community how it assesses this model. This was a voluntary community survey and explicitly not a representative scientific study. The questions were voluntary, no personal data was collected and the answers could not be traced back to individual participants. Nevertheless, a remarkably clear picture of sentiment has now emerged.

In the basic assessment, 42.62 percentsay they clearly do not consider the model acceptable. A further 11.48 percent describe it as rather problematic. Thus, a total of 54.10 percent view the combination of an existing publisher DLC and subsequent additional Patreon monetization critically in principle.

At the same time, the result shows something crucial to this debate: The participants are by no means simply demanding that all new development work must remain free forever. 31.15 percent consider additional payment acceptable in principle if it is genuinely exclusively about clearly new content. A further 11.48 percent accept Patreon if it serves merely as early access and the content later appears through regular channels. Only 3.28 percent consider the model completely acceptable without further qualification.

The community therefore distinguishes fairly clearly between new work and maintaining an already paid-for product.

It becomes even more interesting when we look at precisely the justification that is at the center of this commentary for me. 59.02 percent do not find the argument convincing and explicitly believe that the publisher’s involvement is part of the chosen distribution model. A further 27.87 percent can partially understand this perspective, but do not see it as an automatic justification for an additional payment channel. Only 13.11 percent consider the argument completely understandable.

Thus, 86.89 percent do not consider the publisher’s involvement at least an automatic justification for directing existing buyers to an additional payment channel.

And that is my point. Understanding that a developer wants to be paid for their work? Of course. But it does not automatically follow that existing customers should compensate for a possibly unsatisfactory distribution of revenue between developer and publisher through a second payment channel.

For most people, bug fixes and performance are something entirely different from new content

The boundary becomes even clearer when asking which content for an already purchased DLC should continue to be provided through the official distribution channel. Multiple answers were possible here.

95.08 percent name bug fixes and error corrections. 93.44 percent expect performance improvements to continue to be provided through the official distribution channel, while 72.13 percent name compatibility updates. Even minor updates to existing content are still seen by 55.74 percent as part of this area.

As soon as it is actually about new content, the picture changes significantly. Only 26.23 percent see new routes or route expansions as necessarily belonging to the previous distribution channel; for larger new expansions, the figure is only 9.84 percent. Only 3.28 percent basically take the position that any further development may be offered separately for a fee.

For me, this is one of the most important results of the entire survey. The position is not: “I paid once in 2017, and now I want new bus routes for free until 2040.” The boundary is much more reasonable: Please repair and maintain the product you sold me. If you subsequently develop something genuinely extensive and new, then you may also sell me a new product.

The open-ended responses also frequently point in exactly this direction. Several participants accept Patreon as a voluntary means of support or for time-limited early access, as long as the finished version later appears through regular channels for the actual buyer. Bug fixes, performance and compatibility are repeatedly explicitly assigned to normal product maintenance. From the perspective of many participants, large new maps, new districts or clearly defined expansions may, by contrast, certainly cost money again.

At the same time, two points keep recurring: Subscription models are viewed critically, and clear communication is demanded. Buyers want to know in advance what belongs to their existing product and what will in future be offered as new standalone paid content.

And the Patreon subscription, of all things, receives hardly any support

Perhaps the most interesting figure lies in the question of how genuinely new and extensive Bremen-Nord content should be sold.

42.37 percent prefer a regular DLC through Steam or the publisher for this. 6.78 percent would prefer a one-time purchase directly through Patreon. 16.95 percent do not care about the distribution channel as long as the price and content are right. 32.20 percent would generally not pay extra again.

And a Patreon membership or subscription?

1.69 percent.

That is remarkable. Because here the difference between “New development work may cost money” and “I want to commit to a membership model permanently for this”becomes quite clear. A classic one-time purchase through the familiar distribution channel receives many times more support in our survey than a Patreon subscription.

This is also where I see a larger problem for me that extends far beyond Bremen-Nord. With a classic DLC model, the economic process is fairly clear: Content is developed, completed, published and then generates revenue through sales. A membership model, by contrast, can monetize the ongoing development process itself. Intermediate states, pre-release versions, new builds and further development steps can generate recurring revenue on an ongoing basis.

I expressly do notclaim that the developer of Bremen-Nord is therefore deliberately leaving anything unfinished. There is no evidence whatsoever for that, and such a personal insinuation would be unfair. But it is entirely legitimate to discuss the economic incentive structure of a business model.

A model that can repeatedly monetize ongoing development naturally creates different incentives from a model in which a clearly defined product is completed and then sold.

We should talk about this more often, especially in the simulator community.

The proper solution would be surprisingly simple

If a major new Bremen-Nord expansion is actually created, sell it to me.

Seriously.

Call it, for all I care, Bremen-Nord Expansion 2027, clearly state below it which new routes and lines are included, name a reasonable price and publish it as a clearly defined product. Whether this expansion costs five, seven or ten euros can then be discussed based on its scope.

Then I know what I am buying. I know where I get it. I know where updates for it will appear. And I do not have to track different Patreon tiers, locked posts, pre-patches and different version statuses in addition to Steam.

The developer receives the share agreed within their business relationships. The publisher receives the share to which it is entitled under the chosen agreement. The distribution platform may also earn its share.

How these parties divide their revenue among themselves is their business relationship. Not mine.

After all, I do not buy a bread roll from the baker and then receive a message from the master baker saying that, unfortunately, shop rent, staff and the cash register were also paid from the sale price, and that I should please finance the additional grains through his private monthly subscription in future.

The comparison is absurd.

That is precisely why the problem is immediately understandable.

For me, this hybrid model remains a low point of DLC culture

Perhaps this judgment sounds harsh. It is intended to be harsh.

Not against the person behind the project. Not against the desire to earn money from development work. And not against the entirely legitimate statement that, after many years of free expansions, the point may eventually be reached when genuinely new content must be paid for again.

My criticism is directed at this business model.

I consider the combination of a DLC built up and sold commercially through a publisher and subsequent private monetization of the same product base one of the most unpleasant manifestations of modern DLC culture.

Not because five euros would be too much. Not because developers should work for free. But because it makes the boundaries blurred.

What exactly did I buy? Where does maintenance of this product end? Where does a new expansion begin? Which version is the regular version? When am I a voluntary supporter and when am I simply a customer again?

And above all: Why should the very fact that a publisher earns money from a product it publishes later serve as justification for approaching that same existing customer base again through a direct payment channel?

Anyone who uses the power of a publisher also chooses a publisher model. Inevitably, that includes the publisher having an economic stake. If this arrangement no longer works at some point, it should be renegotiated between developer and publisher. The customer is not responsible for repairing it afterward.

If Bremen-Nord 2027 is supposed to cost five euros, then sell me Bremen-Nord 2027 for five euros as a properly defined product. I would be very happy to do so.

What I do not want is to first buy a commercial DLC through a publisher and later be told that the very involvement of that publisher is supposedly a reason why further development should now be monetized additionally through a private payment channel.

Our community survey shows something I consider essential: The skepticism is directed not simply at paying for new work. Bug fixes and performance are very clearly assigned to product maintenance, while genuinely new expansions are assessed differently. At the same time, a considerable proportion still prefers the classic one-time purchase through Steam or the publisher for such new content, while a Patreon subscription receives hardly any support.

Perhaps that is the simplest answer to the entire debate:

New work may cost new money. But a purchased product should remain a purchased product and not subsequently become the ticket to the next payment model.

What do you think: Is this model a legitimate modern form of continued development for you, or does it cross a line with a DLC that has already been sold commercially?