Open source is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of video games. After all, not many people play Tux Racer or Arianne RPG on a regular basis. On the other hand, Ridge Racer and World of Warcraft are extremely popular. Actually this is an unfair comparison because the open source games listed were not financially backed projects.

Why aren't there financially backed video game projects that are open source? The simple answer is that potential investors see no way to make money on open source games. After all, why would anyone pay for a game if the source code is freely available? The answer may surprise you. I think, quite simply, that the bulk of a modern game has been outsourced entirely from the binary executables. While anyone could modify and redistribute the binary executable were the source code to be released under an OSI license (See: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/), it would not follow that all related files would be available under a free license. Only the source code and executables would be freely redistributable.

What are the problems potentially associated with this? The game development studio could be reduced to a glorified modding house. Investment in game technologies might decrease as funding is shifted to content production. It would not be possible to employ Digital Rights Management (DRM).

Let us consider the matter.

For a start, many game development studios are already glorified modding houses. Sure, many studios do their own coding. However, the industry is shifting toward the development of fewer, more powerful engines for use in many games. As development costs rise, duplication of effort has to decrease, so this shift is only natural. This might explain the rise of engine licensing. There are now engines not only for graphics and sound (that are arguably as low level as game development should get on modern hardware), but also for physics modeling and artificial intelligence. The higher level versions of these engines are one cause of complaints that many games look or sound the same. Physics modeling is approaching the same level of standardization. Thankfully, there is still variety in the field of artificial intelligence.

I am not going to argue against the use of engines developed by other studios. However, there is a different business model that might work just as well. Instead of having one studio invest heavily in an engine and then license it to other studios to recoup some of the development cost, all the studios could simply share in the development cost and work on the engine together. It is likely that the development time of the engine would decrease, allowing game developers to stay much closer to the cutting edge. Furthermore, no one studio would have to risk the entire cost of the development of the engine. Is there the possibility that studios who refuse to invest or who come late to the game could reap benefits from the collective work for nothing? Sure there is, but I doubt that they would stay in business long without innovations of their own. If any studio tried to take from the community without giving back, the other studios would have little trouble catching up.

Regarding DRM, I do not see the point in the first place. As you probably know, DRM serves to hurt only those who support the developers. There is not one type of DRM currently in existence that cannot be beaten. Furthermore, it is remarkable how many legitimate users have had to circumvent DRM for fair use, or for any use at all. The only fair solution to the problem is, once again, related to the content outside the executable. If you do not give them the game in the first place, they cannot pirate it. The Massively Multiplayer Online Game is the only type of game that cannot be pirated. Nobody is illegally downloading World of Warcraft or Everquest 2. Even so, DRM is not what is stopping most people from buying video games. Most people are inclined to pay for their entertainment because it is the honest thing to do. Generally, people are not illegally copying or downloading games that they would otherwise buy if the DRM could not be circumvented.

I certainly do not expect the video game industry to shift to the open source model in the near future. In fact, I believe that the video game industry might be the most hesitant of all software-based industries to change to the open source model because of its heightened use of DRM. Nonetheless, I think such a change could be beneficial to the industry in many ways.

Note: views and opinions expressed in this article are the author's and are not necessarily those of Wolverine Soft.