This will be an exercise in careful reading.
I'm a little hesitant to come out boldly for this opinion... but when I weigh the pros and cons, it makes sense. In summary, it's my "Tools vs. Toys" philosophy. I think games, as in video games for computing systems, should not be held up to the same standards of FOSS freedom as other kinds of software.
Tools are different. Tools are compilers, editors, web browsers, servers, drivers, platforms... in all of these cases, I have seen that consistently the Free/ Open Source development model not only makes maximum liberty possible for everyone, but produces a higher quality product.
But I see that it's not necessarily so with video games. In games, the results seem to stack up at random. I know some Free/ Open Source games that are better than many commercial/ proprietary games, and I know some commercial/ proprietary games that are better than many FOSS games. Some win by engineering, while losing on media quality, and vice versa.
The Linux blog world has been buzzing a little about the game market on Linux. Unfortunately, the current examples cited in that link just happen to be products that the Cult of Helios is shilling for, so, ugh! Can't touch that with a ten-foot pole. As it is, simply because they happen to be focused on games right now, I can expect the flamin' hot-pants idiot brigade to descend on my comments section like a plague of locusts. (And H. goes from never mentioning games once in all his years to suddenly talking about nothing on his blog but these games for six months? The money's going in his pocket, bet your fur.) The Cult of Helios craps on everything. But oh well.
Notwithstanding those examples, the big picture is that yes, Virginia, there is a market for Linux games. And I think encouraging that market is a good thing to do. As I rediscover with both excellent FOSS games (like Neverball), and excellent proprietary games (like Quake Live), there is no reason that Linux cannot be as good a gaming platform as any other system.
But I just think that making all games for Linux have to be licensed as FOSS isn't that important. I will carefully lay out my reasons:
Games are not mission-critical. The world will not come to an end if you can't patch a game. It's not like you have a printer that won't print and you can't fix it because the license is closed - the example which famously prompted RMS to create GNU.
Games are more about the artwork than the code anyway. If you're talking pure engine over visual, audio, and interface appeal, heck, Nethack beats everything. But the Diablo series is very similar in playing style to Nethack, but whoops butt on the sound, video, and interface department.
Artwork is very seldom free. We saw this with idSoftware's previous releases of FPS games as open source. The Doom source code is now open, but you still have to pay for the levels packs, because the art, sound, and design is a separate matter from the code. Code, while being an art form, is also an engineering matter, and is so easier collaborated in the open method. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow; but artwork, on the other hand, usually suffers in quality when it has too many hands involved. Ever seen a film where the script was written by a committee?
Art takes more time than code. I, myself, have offered a lot of artwork to the public for free. But I also do commercial work. I'll be the first to tell you, I put a lot more effort into graphic design when I'm paid for it. Code, on the other hand, doesn't take the same proportion of time. If I work for two weeks concentrating on just one project, I can design a major software application that possibly may be world-class and land me a spot in history, or I can draw a half-believable interior room that will get a few votes on DeviantArt, but will still not be as popular as a funny stick-figure comic.
Games are less satisfying to design than applications. By that, I mean that when you make an application that does something, you are giving the world a tool. I would far rather have been the author of something like sed than I would the greatest five video games made today, because the author of sed can know that generations of users will go on using his tool to make life easier for themselves, whereas games will have a brief following of fame that decreases as the game becomes outdated, eventually being forgotten by subsequent generations (not counting rare nostalgia/ abandonware nuts like me).
Game enjoyment doesn't seem to be impacted much by the source code being open or closed. As long as it installs and plays when you want it, do you care?
Now, I told you that this would be an exercise in careful reading. If you've made it this far without posting your flaming rebuttal, you know that the following misinterpretations are what I did NOT say:
- ...that all FOSS games are bad.
- ...that all proprietary games are good.
- ...that all games should be closed.
- ...that even all parts of games should be closed. Physics engines, for instance, might fare better as FOSS, so mixed licenses might do well.
- ...that FOSS games can't make money.
- ...that DRM is justified.
- ...that proprietary software companies like Microsoft and Adobe are justified.
- ...that proprietary licenses for video games don't also have problems.
- ...that a robust, profitable market in FOSS games is impossible.
Comments:
I know, good point, Oz! I agree, I'd take a safe FOSS option too. But seriously, I don't think if a game like, say, Warcraft were a Trojan, and it was the copy you'd buy in the store, they'd let it go that long without being fixed. Be a PR nightmare for the company.
But what I think you're getting after is games with security holes in them where machines might be compromised. That is a legitimate concern. Although Linux still has advantages in that aspect; don't run a game as root, Windows users would report the hole first, etc.
Doesn't sound practical, unless you have a lot of free time on your hands ...
As for the other points I think you're pretty much dead on. Art usually seems to be the bottleneck for indie or amateur games and mods.
I would prefer all firmware on all appliances like media players and ebook readers be FLOSS. But if not, meh. As for the software on them, much prefer FLOSS but it's not really essential. As long as they are "open sourcey" like the Aluratech Libre ebook reader/MP3 player which can display .txt, PDF, ePub, MOBI etc etc etc and doesn't play DRM strategies, I'm fine.
Sure, there are all of the many points you made regarding games. But also: they're junk. Just stuff for fun. If you eat junk food, some of the stuff is really bad for you but you like it. Playing games is not bad for you but being closed source is not so good but you like it. Fine.
By the way, PP, I've read every post on your blog for a few years now it seems. So, just a note of thanks.
Freespace open, nexuiz, urban terror, stepmania, openarena, neverball, etc.
I really like them because they're exceptionally high quality, very fun to play, and no DRM. I don't slap down money for games anymore since the advent of DRM. And i thought steam was horrible enough. Apparently electronic arts did some worse stuff.
A game doesn't need to be free for anyone to enjoy it. The problem is that most games that cost money have DRM and that makes the game unplayable or you have to micromanage it to play (like assassins creed 2). This makes games with DRM undesirable and harder to play the game.
I like FOSS/OSS games because they're fun, they're free, they look great, they're entertaining, and no DRM. Now, if a non FOSS/OSS game had no DRM, then i'd really want to find out if is fun and entertaining in the least (games on the market haven't been for a while) before i slap down money.
FOSS/OSS games are of a much higher caliber than a game meant to get peoples attention and rake in the big bucks (like halo 3, and many others). FOSS/OSS games actually deliver, whereas games for consoles and computers that cost money today have not deliverred for a while, and will continue to not do so in the future.
This is why i only play FOSS/OSS games and have a such high opinion of them. I share you're opinion that games do not need to be FOSS/OSS, it's just that purchasing today's games that cost money hasn't been worth it for a while (since drm dicked the customer, and a crappy game dicked their wallet).
Done.
I didn't even notice until you pointed it out! :)
Release a proprietary game and later release source code for the engine. They did it with DOOM/heretic/hexen, and quake. people even managed to improve on the DOOM and quake engines, giving us Skulltag and Jake2, respectively.
Let's say I agree with you that games should not be open source:
How do you make my computer safe from nasty games which don't harm my privacy or security ?
If game "A" is great, but might be a Trojan, and game "B" is less great but open I'll opt for "B".
I will pay for an open source game, and I donate money for open source project, to support the developers. But I won't install "Closed" Source.
Art can be licensed under Creative Commons license and still be sold by the producer. But I want to be able to see the code for the sake of my safety.