Open Sourcing a Commercial Game

[lude]

I was wondering if anyone here has any experience open sourcing a project but still selling the game commercially? The idea being that the code is open and modifiable but any other game assets must come from a purchased copy. Can this be successful financially?

My main reason for wondering about this is Linux and its culture of open source. Opening up the source code would allow people to create packages for whichever distribution they choose, instead of having to do this all myself. There also seems to be an negative stigma associated with closed source in some communities with might hinder the success of a closed source game.

Of course on Windows and Mac open source might be nice for some but most people are used to everything being closed so it is not much of an issue.

[lakibuk]

Caravelgames' DROD is open source. There was an interview with Erik Hermansen (ErikH2000) from Caravel where he talked about open source development:
http://www.indiegamepod.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

[GolfHacker]

I've written some articles (http://www.gamedev.net/reference/list.asp?categoryid=57#245) over on gamedev.net about Linux Game Development. While I haven't tackled the issue of opening commercial source code, I have addressed packaging issues. It is certainly possible (and fairly easy) to build both an executable and an installer that will work on almost every distro.

I'm not sure whether opening your source code will help with sales on Linux, but it would probably gain you a larger audience. Erik Hermansen's interview is probably the best source of information regarding that topic.

[Bad Sector]

Unless you meddle with DRM stuff, i don't think you have anything to lose or gain from releasing the source. People rarely care about that stuff.

EDIT: I talk from experience from Nikwi (http://www.slashstone.com/more/nikwi), of course. I've got very few downloads for the source so far.

[RinkuHero]

You can make a game open source and still charge for the data of the game -- the graphics, the music, and so on. Open source doesn't mean public domain.

[GolfHacker]

Unless you meddle with DRM stuff, i don't think you have anything to lose or gain from releasing the source. People rarely care about that stuff.

They don't care about it directly, that's true.

However, the one benefit you might get from opening your source is the possibility of inclusion within distro-specific package managers. I've been thinking about this for awhile now. Not many Linux users download and install software from the internet, at least not yet - it's tough to find generic Linux binaries for various applications on the internet, because there has been so little information about how to do it (until I published my articles). And most Linux users don't want to bother downloading source code and building their own binary (a growing number of Linux users wouldn't even know how to do it). As a result, the primary distribution channel for open source software is via the package manager of the distribution being used. This is how most Linux users get their software (e.g., Ubuntu's apt-get, SUSE's YAST, etc). It's convenient, easy, and most open source software is directly available through the package manager. There's also a perception of security, because even though you don't know who built the binary, you're getting it directly from the company or organization that provides the distro, so there is a sense of trust to it.

I'm thinking that if we, as developers, can plug into that distribution channel, we'll get a pretty good audience for our Linux games. But distros typically don't distribute closed source binaries with their package managers - the only exceptions are a few binary drivers (like NVidia drivers) that many users consider essential. Therefore, I've been wondering if opening the source code for a commercial game might also open some good doors for distribution and exposure among Linux users. Of course, there is still the issue of the game content (artwork, audio, etc) - a distro isn't going to include a binary of your game unless there is clear licensing and rights in place for what distros can and can't do with the game content. And even then, they may not want to deal with it. I don't really know.

I've been wanting to test this idea, but as a part-time indie, I don't have the time. Opening the source to my game engine, which I am building on and reusing for additional games, means that I would have to setup a system to manage an official code base, review code contributions, put licensing in place to govern the copyrights of contributed code, answer questions from possible contributors - all the stuff that Erik Hermansen talks about in his interview. So this will have to wait until I can do this full-time. Unless, of course, someone else wants to experiment and report back their results...