[mrspandex]

Personally, I don't see games the same as other software. Generally, they are more like content (movies, music, etc). Especially in the world of game consoles, where the games come on read only discs.

Games that are able to be "modded" of course add additional value and surely open source games would only expand the possibility, but there aren't the same concerns of my work and data being locked away in a proprietary ecosystem. If a game from 10 years ago stops working, it is disappointing, but not debilitating.

[geon]

A great point. The counter argument would be the recent development with drm that requires online authentication to run, so they can't be sold and will stop working at some point, most likely within 5-10 years.

[betterth]

"so they can't be sold and will stop working at some point, most likely within 5-10 years."

This is incorrect, it would be more correct to say that they could stop working at some point.

It's entirely possible (and has been done before) for the company to patch out the DRM before turning servers off or going defunct.

The internet is also full of no-cd cracks that generally circumvent this kind of always-on protection (at the expense of breaking multiplayer) without circumventing serial code or other protections.

[gcp]

Or games that require closed-source servers where the server software isn't provided to customers, but only to select hosting partners.

[user49598]

It's not about what kind of software they are considered, it's about code running on your system. In the RMS eyes, if code runs on your system, and you can't read/modify that code yourself, it's unethical.

[jiggy2011]

I agree in principle certainly, I do prefer general openness (e.g even if your engine stays closed, allow a modding API or GPL the whole thing after X number of years ala id software) in games but I'm generally less concerned as long as the user experience is good (i.e not too dependant on third party services like "games for windows").

I guess though Richard would object on the principle that a closed source game can still do things that are "user hostile", for example DRM systems that have implications outside of the game playing (see the recent ubisoft vulnerability). You can also have places where the lines between "games" and "software" becomes murky (I guess minecraft might fit here, also graphics libraries like OpenGL that are primarily used for games but also have other uses).

There is also the issue that games can act as an attractive trojan horse to get people to use a closed platform (for example Xbox 360 exclusive games) and become used to closedness in software.

In theory Steam helps address the second problem, though from Richards point of view this could become a double edged sword. If Steam becomes too popular on Linux then it might become the preferred way for software vendors to package Linux software and popular programs stop bothering to offer standard .tgz or .deb versions and the platform as a whole starts to revolve around a closed source offering.