Talk:List of open-source video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Diamond-caution.svg Please post only games that make their source code and/or media content, like graphics and sound, fully available and free to modify and redistribute. Featured games must have an article on Wikipedia in further stages than a stub. Anything else will be REMOVED.


Rail World[edit]

Can someone make an article for this good GNU game, and add it to this great list. I can not making myself, I am not english-speaker. It an FYM like game. Here is the link to this game : RailWorld —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PiX Juegos' games[edit]

By PiX Juegos' games I mean: PiX Bros, PiX Pang and PiX Frogger

Now each game has its own article. If anyone removes our games from this list, please give a good reason.

To anyone who doesn't understand why I'm saying this, it's because our games have been deleted from this list some times before by people who consider theirselves that "games without article should be deleted". I'm not english-speaker myself, and I cannot write an entire article in english for it.

And, last, if anyone is not completely sure, our games are 100% GPL, the source is included along the binaries and there's a copy of the GPL in every project's page and within the binaries. Panreyes 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles won't necessarily last long unless you can show how they are notable and provide reliable, independent sources for them, see WP:N and WP:V. If you are involved in the making or publication of the games yourself, you might want to take a look at WP:COI too. Marasmusine 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the features section in every game?

I understand that the PiX Juegos page was not needed, but "the reliable sources" are just the page that is referenced in External links. And I don't know why this page is bad, I just copied the most from PySol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panreyes (talkcontribs) 07:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:N requires that independent references be used to assert notability. This may be magazine reviews, interviews with the developers, or what have you. The primary source (the game and official website) can be used as a reference when notability is established. Marasmusine 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for the info :) I'm understanding why this is done.

Now the problem I see is that every review of those games is in... Spanish (most), Italian, Japanese, etc... but I don't think of any in English. I only remember the review in Happypenguin, or in Softpedia, but I don't think it's enough. Anyway, I thought this would be easier, I cannot afford taking the time of looking for an english review for every game, and also, PiX Frogger it's a minigame that hasn't made any noise, so it's not reviewed in any place (but it's in Debian Sid already because it's our most bugless game...) Panreyes 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The foreign language reviews will be okay, if the source is reliable (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, sorry for all these referals, but they sum it up far better than I can!) If notability for PiX Juegos itself can be established, the less notable games can at least be listed on there. Marasmusine 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've put three reviews in different languages from different sites in each game. I hope it's enough :) Panreyes 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alien Arena 2007[edit]

Can someone add alien arena 2007? It is based on the gpl'd quake ii code so its under some similar license i think

Criteria for inclusion?[edit]

It's not clear if this list should only include games with their own articles or not, as is the case with most lists. If it should only include "notable" games, this should be made clear at the top of the article. Otherwise, if the list is intended to be exhaustive, then that should be made clear. Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this hasn't been addressed 4 months later, I'm going to "be bold" and add it. --irrevenant [ talk ] 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A Tale in the Desert?[edit]

A tale in the desert has its source code downloadable, however I am not sure if this is purely for compatability reasons with those who must compile from source or if it is truely open source, could someone look into this? -- 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Somebody put descent on this list. Shinobu said that "If the content is not open, that means that only the game engine is really free/open, but the game as a whole is not." Descent is open-source, in the public domain, but the content of the game is not. Thus, I am going to remove it from the list. 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the open-source community project based on the game? Surely that deserves a link? (And the same for the Descent: Freespace Source Code Project.) Mysterius 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If both engine and content are open source, then it can be on this list. Even if the engine was orgininally used in an non-open source game. Shinobu 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Someone deleted the Ecksdee article I wrote, one day after it was made? I have the author giving all writes to the text and images for it. 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Why did you remove so many games on Sept 13? Were all of those not open source? Rob 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what the heck happened? Just by looking through the first 3 deleted game entries, I've found that 0verkill, Asteroid (remake), and Bird Park Tycoon are all open-source, at least according to their websites. Asteroids (remake) was even hosted on Sourceforge! It seems clear that these entries were not properly reviewed, if at all, before they were deleted. Weeding out truly non-open source games from this list (and adding them to the freeware games list, remember!) is good, but random deleting is certainly not. Mysterius 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've checked up on some of the deleted items:
Descent was probably removed because only the engine is open source.
0verkill is GLP'ed, complete with levels.
Ace of Penguins is GPL'ed, including cards etc.
Allegiance seems to be open source, but research into the license (of the worlds in particular) is required.
Automaniac comes with data.
Asteroids was probably removed because you cannot get at the source without running an executable.
Battle of Antargis - couldn't download gz file... maybe someone should try again later.
Bird Park Tycoon - zip file corrupt?
Blob Wars: Blob And Conquer was probably removed because no further information and no link was given.
Castle comes as part of an LGPL package.
Charred Dirt - both source and data for download, but no license given, so it might not actually be open source after all.
Chromium B.S.U. artistic license, both source and data, afaict.
Crossfire+ is GPL'ed.
Crystal Core - source: LGPL, art: CC
Cuyo is GPL'ed, including data.
Daimonin - some very shady things have been going there. Closing content, forbidding connections to third-party servers, etc. Definitely not an open source game.
Dark Oberon - couldn't find a license, see Charred Dirt.
Dink Smallwood - only the engine is open source [1]
Egoboo - again no license...
Foresight Exchange - no mention of source code or anything like that...
Freedroid RPG is GPL'ed.
FreeOrion relies on a non-free library.
FreeTennis is GPL'ed.
Gnome Games are open source, afaict.
Gnome Hearts is GPL'ed.
Hack is open source [2]
ioquake3 is an open source engine and shouldn't be on this list. IDs levels are still closed afaik.
JFDuke3D is GPL'ed.
Laser Squad 3D is GPL'ed.
Lentilwars no link or other info, should be removed.
Marathon Aleph One is GPL'ed.
Mars: Land of No Mercy - can't find license.
Moon-Buggy is GPL'ed.
I have to stop here, the rest will have to wait. Shinobu 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha. Finally.

I prefer qaulity over qauntity. Those games mostly didnt have any proper articles. Links do not count as articles. --E-Magination 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Who decides if a game is "quality," though? And what is a "proper" article, according to you? Several of the deleted games did have articles, and not just stubs, either. This is a List of open source games, not "Quality open source games." I believe that with a deletion of this scale you should have at least given some heads-up on the Talk page. I don't mean to disrespect your effort, but this is a community-written encyclopedia. I hope there will be better communication in future edits. -Mysterius 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    We (inclusive "we") decide what's quality. I think it's a fair reading of What Wikipedia is not to say that we should maintain some quality controls of the list by occasionally purging it of games that don't "belong". If we wanted to be rigorous about it, we could come up with some rules of thumb for what "belong" means. I'd suggest notability (measured by whether it has an article) and being actually free software/open source as basic criteria, but others might have different ideas. — Saxifrage 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
We could limit ourselves to games with a Wikipedia article, or to games that actually work. We could place a screenshot near the better ones to make them stand out. Just some ideas, comment away please. Shinobu 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Look. If a game with a proper article, proper licening etc. is deleted, Re-Add them. Be BOLD.
I will re-add moon-buggy. It is GPLed and actually works. --Jochen 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
":FreeOrion relies on a non-free library." I cannot see any non-free part in FreeOrion mentioned here [3] and also [4] does not refer to any non-free library needed, so maybe it should be re-added to the list? -- (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

About deleting any game without article[edit]

I don't know what do you want to get by deleting 'games without articles', but I don't think it's a good idea. E.g: I'm a spanish open source videogame programmer and I don't know english well enough to write that article, but I can, at least, write a line telling that my game is a clone of Super Pang and that is called PiX Pang. Also, if there's no article but the game is linked, maybe someone will write that article about the game. I think it would be better to let the games without article in and write some info in those games without articles. Excuse my grammar.

I agree. My lack of knowledge regarding creation of wikipedia articles has prevented me from writing an article for the open source driving simulator that i've been writing for 3 years (open source contents too, yeah). The name is Motorsport. It has a working website, forums, images gallery, even a vids gallery. However it's been removed from the list. I added a red-link hoping someone would start writing an article, but this way no one will feel the need to write it. Shoud all links to inexisting articles be removed from wikipedia too? I think i recall reading that leaving small text mistakes here and there, and leaving links to unwriten articles was actually a good thing, encouraing people to edit and extend the wikipedia. Also, is anyone in charge of this page? How was it decided that these types of games shold be removed? --STenyaK 00:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the entire point of even having lists instead of categories was that you could have redlinks. Playstationman 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That way this article is getting out of hand.--E-Magination 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is about List, not "Quality Picks." Who is to decide if a game is "quality" or not? Basic requirements should certainly be enforced, such as having an article or stub, perhaps at least of two or three sentences in length, and actually being open source. Beyond that, though, I don't think we can reasonably exclude any games, and wouldn't trying to vet each one for "quality" actually increase the workload? If you want to make the browsing easier, a better step would be to organize the games into basic sections like "RTS," "RPG," etc., and perhaps with small pictures for ones that are deemed significant, like Shinobu suggested. I don't believe deleting true open source games from this list is the answer, though. -Mysterius 09:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think requiring an article or stub is backwards. IMO, if a game deserves to be on this list (ie. if it's notable) but has no article, then it should be added to the list and given an empty (red) link so an article can be created around it. Unless you are saying that if you want to add a game to this list then you should add a stub as well? --irrevenant [ talk ] 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this kind of lists can be easily abused is just a reason. Please read what Wikipedia is not.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The list also fails to distinguish between operating systems, which to me makes it completely useless in its current format.   — Lee J Haywood 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with that. MrHen 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion having a list of red links is a good way of pointing people to articles needed to be written. To show the platforms needed, do we have little icons or logos on wp that we could add to the descriptions for OS's such as Microsoft Windows/ReactOS, Unix/Linux, Mac OS, Atari TOS etc. and environments such as Java, Flash, SVG+Javascript or whatever? -- 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a list for article writers. But the icons are a good idea.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree. When I come to this list I am looking for games that have strong development and are not merely attempts at getting famous quickly. In my opinion, if there is a strong community for a particular game it should be on this list. If more than a couple hundred people play the game it should be here. An extremely easy way to test that is if it has a Wikipedia article. Developers should not be putting their games on this list. I do not think this should be a bulletin board for garnering attention. If the game is good and the community is strong a Wikipedia article will appear and it will make it to this list. I have no problem kicking games off the list for not having full Wikipedia articles. MrHen


GNU Backgammon has no current article. I will delete it for the time being - when someone makes an article, post here, and create the entry again. -Slash- 06:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for all the other entries.

Warsow & open content?[edit]

AFAIK Warsow doesn't use open content.--MilesTeg 12:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Warsow is open. -Slash-μιλώ 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The media is copyrighted, and will remain artist’s property unless we abandon this project. In that case, we will ask the artist for their permission to make the media GPL. (see section 2.4) Playstationman 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds pretty not open to me :\ // 3R1C 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement for the content of the game to be licensed under a specific licence, for the game to be considered open source In fact, that wikipedia article mentions Warsow as an open source game (line 3 in Examples), and Warsow does indeed have it's source code open. So I'm adding it to the list, GajoP (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of you guys are totally missing the point of open source. Open source is about freedom. Freedom is the freedom to change and modify the game to suit your needs. If that freedom is provided through distribution of programming code with the binary, then the game is open-source and should be on the list. If a game happens to include music or art that isn't GPL, that doesn't mean the game isn't open source.

ActionCube's content is not open[edit]

Because only ActionCube's source is open, it cannot be listed here.

I have, however, listed it on List of freeware games --Noerrorsfound 06:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Superscript text

A freeware game isn't an open source game. If you want to make a distinction between open source games and open content games, then a new list should be created. To quote the open source game article on wikipedia, "Open source games which are free software and contain exclusively free content are called free games. Most free games are open source, but not all open source games are free software; some open source games contain proprietary non-free content." If this list is meant to be a list of "Free games" then the article title and content should be changed to reflect that. However, charging for a game shouldn't exclude it from the open-source list as long as the source is open, its open-source.

From List to Table?[edit]

Wouldn't it be great if this list was converted to a table with columns such as "platform support", "Last update", "Category", etc. ?

Lordsatri 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alien Arena[edit]

Hello, i dont think this game is open source. Thanks. 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? mrholybrain's talk 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The developers don't understand the GPL, for one thing. But it's still technically "open source" in that the source is available for perusal. Chris Cunningham 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I looked at it, and it looks like the source is GPL, as it is based off of the Quake II engine, but it seems the content is under a non-commercial license, which means that Alien Arena is not eligible for the list. mrholybrain's talk 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
How does that work? Many "proprietary content" games are listed here after all!-- (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

genre section too?[edit]

I am pretty new to wikipedia, but wouldnt it also be useful to have a page with the same information, except divided by genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:20, 4 July 2007

Genre's probably more useful, to be honest. I wouldn't think two different pages would be appropriate. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree; this list should be re-ordered. Alphabetical order is something that Categories do anyway. Personally I favour chronological order for video game lists, but by-genre would work too. MarašmusïneTalk 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the link list[edit]

How about that? it is another Free open source game list. -- 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, linking to other wikis isn't recommended (See WP:Reliable sources), particularly one that uses advertising. Marasmusine 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see penis envy is doing fine on Wikipedia. offers material above and beyond this puny article. And 93,17% of web pages Wikipedia uses as references also display ads. If you Marasmusine think we shouldn't link to it, perhaps you personally could go fetch all the data by hand then, verify it using whatever ivory tower accepted methods and then integrate into this article? (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Is there anything that would disqualify Allegiance, Rocks'n'Diamonds and Sauerbraten from this article? --Lijnema 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about Sauerbraten; article for the first two games say they are open source though. Best thing to do is to list them, saying which Open-source license they are under, with a reference for verification. And we should do this with every entry in this list. Marasmusine 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sauerbraten is open source. But I agree, notes on license & a reference for it might be a nice addition. --Lijnema 11:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sauerbraten's code is free, but the media is not. See [5] In particular: In this sense sauerbraten is similar to games like Quake (its code is Open Source, but its media is not), it is a game that is meant to be added to, not copied and used as a template. Playstationman 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playstationman (talkcontribs)

Possible merge[edit]

At Talk:List of freeware games, we are discussing whether or not we should merge these two lists together (I can't think of any open-source games that aren't also freeware.) If this does happen, of course those games which are open-source will be noted as such. Marasmusine 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Open source games are never freeware, freeware is never open source! Did you read the articles? --Nimmbh 01:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename to List of free games, then. Marasmusine 06:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving to List of free games![edit]

Open source games does not describe the content's media, please move this list to List of free games to avoid confusion! See free games and open source games --Nimmbh 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not blatantly edit the original article without a substantial proof to the contrary[edit]

The original article on open source games does, in fact, describe open source software and open content as part of the definition. The recent "contributor" has blatantly edited the open source games article before he cited it as a source in this discussion. The original and correct article has now been restored. See its "History" as proof for the original article's content. This article has also now been restored, including the Linux Game Tome link, which is a great example of open source games, even if it doesn't cover them exclusively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristn (talkcontribs) 10:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

About not linking directly to the sites[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to provide links to the actual game web sites here, in addition to links to the wiki pages? People coming to this page won't be looking for summary pages on each one, but rather a direct location they can go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't a search engine or portal website, it's an encyclopedia. Besides, I'd think many people might want a bit of info on games rather than blindly going to websites. --Lijnema 16:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey; there's no reason that we can't include both: make the name of the game the Wikipedia article link, and create a new column in the table for the external link. I think that we should use the terse "[1]" syntax (third on mw:Help:Links#External links) for the external links, though. Don't a few other tables on Wikipedia do this? -- (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's against external links guideline. Articles with many external links quickly disintegrate into link farms and spam magnets, it's best not to tempt people with that. -- intgr [talk] 07:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for a link to be added[edit]

Apparently, this is a list of open source games which can be run on Windows, with the page itself on Sourceforge. Does not provide any information about the games themselves, but it seems like a pretty decent list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes100 (talkcontribs) 07:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would a nice link to complement the links to lists of Debian and Linux games. --Lijnema (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Free Gamer[edit]

This blog is the only news resource I know, which specializes on open source games. -- (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs aren't normally accepted as valid external links (WP:EL) Marasmusine (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Free Gamer blog is a news resource on open source games. Not a personal blog. Currently it is edited by two authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion Talk:Open source video game#Free Gamer is not notable for more.Comrade Graham (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Should not marathon be added to this page? And if it is, I think it should be placed under M where it would be easiest to find. G man yo (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so much. Marathon is not open source, but freeware. Quote from the Marathon (video game) page: "In early 2004, Bungie released the entire Marathon Trilogy as freeware, allowing it to be downloaded free of charge." It's the second paragraph in the "Legacy" section. What you are thinking of is "Aleph One (computer game)", the fan made open source port, which is already on this page. Pfhortipfhy (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Isn't PlaneShift open source? It says so right here on wikipedia... Not entirely sure though so didn't add it yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I see it's in the freeware list, I thought it should be in the open source list but maybe I'm wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Their website says the code is under GPL, so I don't see why not. I'll let you do the honours of adding it; the full wikilink is PlaneShift (video game). Marasmusine (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this discussion article it says to only add games that have free source code and media, and Planeshift's media isn't free... or rather, you cannot choose to use it in derived works. "Please post only games that make their source code and media content, like graphics and sound, fully available and free to modify and redistribute. Featured games must have an article on Wikipedia in further stages than a stub. Anything else will be REMOVED." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"For some of these games, only the game engine is open-source software, and the game content is not open content, and is under a different license." <- This is at the top of the page, so PlaneShift is exactly in scope of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No it is not -- open content doesn't mean anything. Well it does, what it means you can submit your content you created to Atomic Blue, which they will then own, and your rights will immediately be inept. You can not then sell what you created, or give it away to an open source project. The game itself -- the characters, rules, dialog, story etc are all owned by a private company. You can not host a server. Only the engine is open source. PlaneShift has no place on this page. EvanCarroll (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Planeshift is open source just as much as a number of the other games, such as and has the EXACT same format. Also note planeshift GPL source includes a selection of free art and data, such as a few minor quests as well as a basic GUI spells ect. (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


I found rRootage in the list, but it is not open source. It is freeware! Can I delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought all of Kenta Cho's games were open source, aren't they? --Lijnema (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge alphabetical list of free games to alphabetical list of open source games[edit]

Alphabetical list of free games is an unneeded content fork of alphabetical list of open source games. In the introduction of the free games article, it states "for open source games which do not necessarily have free content, see alphabetical list of open source games." For such a minor difference, the games could be listed in the article as being "open source, but not free." However, that difference doesn't seem to hold anyway: The talk page of the list of open source games states the criteria for inclusion as being "only games that make their source code and media content, like graphics and sound, fully available and free to modify and redistribute." In other words: the two articles have the same criteria! Since the open source game article existed first, any differences in the free game article should be merged here & a redirect from free games to open source games should be established. --Karnesky (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Lijnema (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge completed. If I underestimate the controversy of this change, feel free to revert the redirect & continue discussion. We have separate articles for free games and open source video games & even separate categories for some reason. I don't believe there is this kind of content forking for other genres of software & this might deserve to be cleaned up later. --Karnesky (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Like many other games listed in this talk page, OpenTTD's content is not open. It requires the original, copyrighted, Transport Tycoon Deluxe graphics files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As of version 1.0, OpenTTD doesn't require non-free graphics or other components. Tms. (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


I've performed a requested housekeeping move, but now I notice that there is also List of open-source games by genre. So in case of disagreement feel free to discuss here if the move needs to undone or another name is more appropriate. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Angband_(computer_game) should be included in this list. Its code and content (such as it is, bitmapped images and simple waveforms) is open source. Parts are GPL, the rest is under a non-commercial open source Angband license. Angband is important for the many variants it has spawned and for the many graduate students whose graduate careers were extended thanks to its addictive gameplay. Nd tim (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If the game is only for non-commercial then it is not open source or free software. Even the maintaner says it's not open source at the moment [6] . I think that, at the moment at least (Hopefully IMO), that Angband should be removed from the list until the fate of the relicensing effort is decided. Zen Clark (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Racing Games[edit]

VDrift, Vamos, Rars, Torcs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Linux Game Tome[edit]

The Linux Game Tome is a list of GNU/Linux games and does not have any information about the open source status. The field "Source" indicates whether the source is available or not, but not whether it is under an open source license or not! Also there is for example a lists that is not specific to open source games, that indicates whether or not they are open source: TIGdb. Remove the Linux Game Tome please.-- (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed some links, including that one, since they were for the broader "free games" subject, rather than specifically open source. I'd like to get some suggestions for alternative links for the EL section. I'm thinking perhaps one to the games section of SourceForge? Marasmusine (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell happened? Everyone is wrong.[edit]

Open source games are computer games assembled out of, and are themselves open-source software; public domain games are also listed. For some of these games, only the game engine is open-source software, and the game content is not open content, and is under a different license.

  1. Free games, are not open source games. Public domain is free "gratis" and not open source. Unless the publisher has released the source, it is not open.
  2. Open source games are not always free games.
  3. There is no correlation between open source, and free -- why are free games on this page.
  4. If the game content is not available the game is not FOSS. If it is not FOSS, it does not belong here.

This article is bad all around, it blurs public domain/abondonware, with FOSS. Either change it to a completely unrelated title, or ditch it in its entirety for being absolutely useless. EvanCarroll (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove any games in this list that are not open source. Marasmusine (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
He's arguing whether open source implies open content, which does not. The current lead paragraph is correct. Tuxide (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not clear about the open content or media or not. The beginning of this discussion page states "Please post only games that make their source code and media content, like graphics and sound, fully available and free to modify and redistribute." But the article says "For some of these games, only the game engine is open-source software, and the game content is not open content, and is under a different license.". If "these games" are the games listed below, it makes no sense... the discussion says only open content games, then the article says some of these have closed content. Either there is a contradiction, or the wording is not clear enough for to grasp its intention. Could anyone clear this up for me? --Sega381 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The only example of this I'm familiar with are Doom source ports. The game engine itself might be open source, but it still requires the propriety doom.wad to function. You're right, I think the lead statement needs adjusting as it implies some of the games listed here are of that nature. Marasmusine (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You forgot games like PlaneShift, TORCS, and Warsow which all include non-free media. Also, this looks like astroturfing to me, I know all the people who agree with EvanCarroll's definition comes from that Free Gamer website, and I don't know anyone who doesn't and is not from there. Tuxide (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the definition, I think now the article is clearer and consistent with the info in the discussion page. Only list games completely open source, including engine, media, etc. Thanks! Sega381 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like that banner has had a long history and has said many different things [7][8] so I wouldn't exactly say it's consistent. Tuxide (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
BUT the current state of the article and the discussion page is consistent, at the moment. That doesn't mean it going to stay that way, but hopefully it will. Sega381 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not just have two separate tables? People obviously want the other games listed. SharkD (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Anybody against it? Sega381 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How about get rid of the screenshots and add a column stating the content license? That way people can discriminate all they want whether games fit their definition of an open game or not. Otherwise the list is just another directory. Tuxide (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree the screenshots aren't necessary. They're just being used for decoration. I guess we could add another column specifying whether the license applies to the media as well or not. Either that or create two tables. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, images removed, added new Content License column. --Sega381 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of astroturfing found here; looks like that that Free Gamer website made some official declaration on Slashdot that they were going to promote the extreme definition of open games. From the article:

Free Gamer, an open source gaming blog, has recently become the center of open source artists, developers and gamers. In its forums...Classical Java RPG and...irrlamb have found their second home. So did sub-communities like extremist free gamers, who insist on games not only be free software but also to contain free content and want to build a knowledge base of existing free games...

I don't think what makes a game an open game is defined by a small group of extremist people. Tuxide (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, they're only applying an existing idea (i.e. free software) created by other people to video games. I think there's room for both definitions in the article. SharkD (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The title should be "List of Important Open Source Video Games"[edit]

There are thousands of open source video games. Due to the Wikipedia's fame qualify system, the title should be "List of Important Open Source Video Games". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The notability threshold is a given (or we would have to rename every list on Wikipedia). I haveinserted "This is a list of selected open source video games." into the lead text, though. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm not sure if it is eligible for inclusion in this page, but I've enjoyed playing the game Koules, by Jan Hubicka since the mid 90s. See [9] for more info. (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


I suggest moving the images to a gallery if they're really necessary. The table is kind of squashed in my screen. SharkD (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Game engines?[edit]

Should there be a second list for game engines? SharkD (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Someone added PlaneShift today, for example: only the client/server is open source, the actual game content is proprietary. This kind of split license should perhaps be in a seperate list. Marasmusine (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There already is a second list of game engines; besides the current table already has enough discriminators. If it was done using two tables, it would have entries like Eternal Lands, The Saga of Ryzom (whose engine is called NeL), Myst Online: Uru Live, and all the Quakes in it. Tuxide (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
So generally we won't list split-license games here; I've removed PlaneShift. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why PlaneShift has to be so extra-special, given the current state of the list and the recent discussion we all had that got us there. Tuxide (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I... the only difference is that PlaneShift has a client and a server component, so it is a slightly different case. But I'm not sure it's clear what we are putting in this list anymore, we're not being consistent.--Sega381 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the current code/content distinction works. Code means any kind of programming, and content means static stuff like images, sound and text. Content can be removed from the game without becoming damaged, and can be replaced without damaging the game. What is special about PlaneShift?
Also, I think people are still confusing open source software with free software. These are mutually-exclusive concepts. It's also simple enough as it is to single these out by sorting one of the columns. SharkD (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's just that when I imagine a "list of open source games", I envision a list of games that are entirely open source. Not a list of proprietary games that happen to use an open source engine. But on the other hand, I don't mind either way. Slap PlaneShift back in if you want. Marasmusine (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really want to go on and on and on about it, but I think it's worth mentioning anyways. We can agree that how we define "open game" is subjective. My definition differs from that of the Freegamer/Libregamewiki circle, yet in the end these definitions are all subjective opinions. The fact is the press has never said this is how an open game is defined, and because of that nobody is going to believe in a common definition and, ultimately, people really aren't going to care what we say here. The press does, however, make an awfully big deal about it when games like Myst Online: Uru Live go open source. Because the press is saying Myst Online is an open source title, this perception is objective and everyone who has heard of Myst Online will believe it. Tuxide (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
So actually the problem is more the title of the article than the content itself. We could have an article called "List of partially open source video games", but it would be too specific. Even though, structurally, I like the current table, I think what would keep everyone happy would be to have two sections; that is, two tables. It's been mentioned before, but I'm more convinced about it now. Therefore, the first one could have completely open source games, and the second one (in the same article) the partially open source games. Having two tables would highlight the difference between those games, and keeping them in the same article would simplify anybody looking for a list of fully or partially open source games. It's not that much work to do. What do you think?Sega381 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm against the two-table solution because that defeats the purpose of having a content license column. If you were to put this into a database, you wouldn't make two tables—one for open content games and another for closed content games—with exactly the same columns and data types. If so, you would have to write two SELECTs and UNION the two if you wanted to list all games that used the GPL2 for its engine instead of just use one SELECT. If it's presentation you are concerned about, I'd say color-code the cells or something and see if people like it. Tuxide (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I initially suggested the two-table format, but think the current two-column format is better. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be an alternative solution. But do remember that this is not a database, and we're not trying to optimize the space or normalize the tables. I agree that the most "elegant" data-wise solution is the way it is, with the extra column (that's why I changed the article to have that extra column in the first place). But I think the presentation is more important in a wikipedia article than the data optimization. And if we want to show the information in the clearest way to the people, we may need two tables; even though you could color-code cells, I think it could become confusing, though we could start by trying that and see how it looks. If you want to continue with the database analogy (which is nice, but I think doesn't completely apply here), what we are trying to achieve here are two different "views" for the same table, though unlike a database, we can't have "hidden" data tables and "showable" views above. Wikipedia articles don't separate the data structure and the presentation (unfortunately maybe), and I think the presentation is of the outmost importance in an article. That being said, I'm still not convinced about either solution... Sega381 (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the analogy I made applies more than I think I've elaborated on. Think of it this way: The table we have supports JavaScript sorting. If we wanted to look up the example I gave—all games with GPL2 engines—we would have to read two tables and perform two sorts, and that way it's harder to read because there's no way to visually view what we want as a single slice. Also we're going to run into the problem where columns do not line up with each other vertically across both tables. Not only is it an obvious visual issue, but it's also an issue from a data mining perspective: Data records that belong in the same data region on a web page are supposed to have the same parent node (in HTML) and have the same depth, and their fields are supposed to line up vertically. This tells the agent that when viewing two tables separated by some sort of break, they both belong in one set of data instead of two. Tuxide (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, good points. I still think that the most important thing is to present the information in such a way that it's the most clear format to the reader, not really to optimize the data structure (in the case of Wikipedia). If color-coding seems to be a clear enough way, and as a bonus we get the better data structure, fine by me. Anybody wants to color-code?--Sega381 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Color-code how? Based on the level of "freeness"? How would one even approach doing that? SharkD (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

0 AD not quite yet[edit]

The webpage of 0 AD states that the game is not in a playable state, prealpha. So depending on the scope of this list, should it be taken out for now? Tms. (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well I played it with a friend on the internet and it was fun. So official it isn't playable but inofficial it works fine. Should stay in this list.--Marcodahms (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Archived in Talk:List of open-source video games/Requested move this section was breaking the wiki formatting of this page Eduemonitalk 15:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add Humble Indie Bundle games on that list?[edit]

Can someone add the games that were released in Humble Indie Bundle pack? Eduemonitalk 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why were Freespace 2, Homeworld, HoverRace and Allegiance removed?[edit]

In October user Mosquitopsu removed Freespace 2, Homeworld, HoverRace and Allegiance from the list.

[10] [11] [12] [13]

Why is this the case? While the source code licenses may not fit the definition of free software, they are open source, and this is not a FOSS list. SharkD  Talk  23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeworld fits in my book, despite the source code license. If there's no rationale, then add it back in. Tuxide (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more justification when removing entries from here for license reasons. Preferably with links to more authoritative places like debian-legal archives, or explaining what part of the license contradicts which criteria of Open Source Definition. Removing just because they use a nonstandard license is a bad idea. -- intgr [talk] 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It would be better to explain why than to remove them from the list. SharkD  Talk  22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tremulous Licensing issues[edit]

According to Moddb tremulous gamedata license is not CC-BY-SA [14] "The next release is complete code and balance wise. After four and an half years of work they were ready for a new release. However, the developers noticed a license issue in the current version. Most of the sound files come from an unknown origin" Also some game maps contain Non commercial licenses, for example "ATCS" map contains a by-nd-nc license [15]Tremaster (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aliens vs. Predator[edit]

Aliens vs. Predator was opensourced years ago; despite having a very short-sighted license, I think it is worth mentioning anyway. --Lohoris (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think it doesn't belong. The non-commercial clause seems to relegate it to source-available status. The only other game on the list with a similar license is Homeworld, and I don't think it should be there either. However, I'll leave it to someone else to pass judgment, as I'm not particularly well-versed in the OSI's open source definition. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Spring is not a game, but an engine[edit]

Spring should be removed from this list in favor of listing games that use the Spring engine to run (which are nearly all open source). Zero-K already exists on this list as its own game, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Spring devs consider games to be derivative works of the engine and thus it is not (legally) possible to have closed source spring games. --ThinkSome (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Rayzom is not Open Source[edit]

Please review Rayzom, I was unable to find the source. It is also not truly a free game. Only free for 21 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was announced here. Specifically it's the GNU AGPLv3 Open Source license. Marasmusine (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


The wiki link links to article from the French Wikipedia, the genre is "Billliard" (which isn't a valid video game genre), and the "extra information"'s a link to the homepage?

Needs to be cleaned. (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither this article nor the French WP provide an independent reference for the game, so I've removed it. Marasmusine (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


I think that this game should be in the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SourceForge Games[edit]

SourceForge kindly compiled a list of games hosted on SourceForge at so we can dig trough it and add on our list. // Liftarn (talk)

Doolfy's Brain Surgery[edit]

The linked wikipedia article to this game does not exist. Neither does the webpage linked to the reference for this game. And finally this game cannot be found via google. Am I missing something, or should this game be deleted from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

TORCS, VDrift and Simutrans : unclear status[edit]

Those games are currently in "Free Engine, Proprietary Content" section, with no information on the license of the content.

TORCS data licensing is not very clear, in the dfsg-compliant package distributed by debian, it seems that all cars and wheels are distributed under the Free Art License, some data files are GPL and some data files have no license info. On sourceforge you can see a non-free directory containing a few car models, not included in the dfsg-compliant package. Is it sufficient to put TORCS in the FEPC section ?

VDrift doesn't have a lot of information on its data, it seems that everything is under GPL, but there's no specific information for the medias. Edit: There are some about.txt files with the data, mentioning Creative Commons non-free licenses : definitely FEPC.

Simutrans seems to have the same status as VDrift : probably Artistic License for everything, but it needs to be confirmed.

There's definitely a need to clarify the status of games whose content is partly non-free. We should either put them all in "Free Engine, Proprietary Content", or create a "Free Engine, Partly Free Content" section, in which we would put Abuse, Seven Kingdoms, Ryzom, etc. The status of a game which has an official dfsg-compliant version should also be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tal Talk[edit]

can we add all the missing opensource games from here? that will great for this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality before quantity, only noteable games should be added. merry xmas Shaddim (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

PushOver at -> it free contents! it not need to ORIGINAL to play, all the game was release as open source. you can download and play with out the original. please move it to where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Todo: Future plans for the game include: [...] Replace original graphics: started -> they included the original artwork. Shaddim (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

you can add also Jagged Alliance [Jagged Alliance] for open source:

thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

it's listed here: List of commercial video games with later released source code Shaddim (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


I suggest to have a cleanup in the genres category as some seem to be the same but I'm not sure if it's the case. Currently other contenders for Platformer, IMHO are:

  • 2D side-scrolling
  • Scroller

Seeing Side-scrolling video game have (currently) 4 sub-genres, I suggest all related genres (by name) are reviewed to make sure they belong in this category of not. DynV (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: in "TBT" last letter is russian, so could be some search inconveniences — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If table sorting breaks again, here's how to quickly find the offending row (with missing fields)[edit]$(".sortable")[0].rows).reduce(function(a,v){return a.concat(v.cells.length !== 7 ? [v] : []);},[]);

Obviously $(".sortable")[0] should be replaced with the relevant table and 7 with the relevant cell count per row.

--Ysangkok (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Mari0 is not OpenSource[edit]

If the license of Mari0's source code is CC-BY-NC-SA, then it's definitely not opensource. Removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA is open source enough for this list. Shaddim (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing Miner Wars 2081 and Racer for the same reason. If you want to add them again, make a table of "Freeware Games with source code available", but on a different page. This one should be dedicated to *OpenSource* video games (see ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For Miner I agree. The license allow no other usage [16] and we can move it to List of commercial video games with later released source code. But Racer is not commercial (Freeware) and "source code available", I'm not sure where to put. Shaddim (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As source available redirects to Open-source software, racer re-added here in a own table. Shaddim (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Those games are not OpenSource, and source available should not redirect to Open-source software. See the definition of Open-source software :
Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available and licensed with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software at no cost to anyone and for any purpose.
CC-BY-NC-SA is not an opensource license and is not a license approved by the OSI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:910:113F:1:A60:6EFF:FED4:1E87 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Infact, while there is the OSI definition, it is not the only definiton ttrying to define open source or is perceived as open source. In the wild we have many more "open-source kind of" licenses... in the popular perception they are all grouped under "open-source" . As long as we have not the better and sharper terminology accepted by the public, open-source is a broad term. cheers Shaddim (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Quotes from Open-source software :
The Open Source Initiative's definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition.[...]
Increasingly, the consensus term "free and open source software" is used by the communities at large to describe the common ground between free software and open source software.[...]
Open source licenses grant licensees the right to copy, modify and redistribute source code (or content).[...]
Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term coined by Microsoft in 2001. While in 2007 two shared source licenses were certified by the OSI, most of the shared source licenses are still source-available only. --> source-available != OpenSource
Quotes from List of open-source video games :
Open-source video games are games assembled from and are themselves open-source software [...] --> see where the link is pointing to
You say :
As long as we have not the better and sharper terminology accepted by the public, open-source is a broad term.
It's a fact that sometimes (too often) people misuse words of the language and mean completely different things than what they're actually talking about. This is not only about opensource. Some people even say "opensource" to designate proprietary software whose source code has been leaked and is not legally usable.
But this is not the average rag published by the mainstream press, this is a universal encyclopedia : it is supposed to be precise and rigorous, and use the words appropriately. Especially if you want to have a better and sharper terminology of opensource. Because if you keep mixing things up you're never going to have one.
If some people really want to include Mari0 somewhere, I suggest they make a page like Software that is not opensource but is believed to be because, you know, it looks similar by far, c'mon it's not that different, opensource is cool but CC-BY-NC-SA is cool too after all, let's say it's opensource ! or whatever shorter and more politically correct term they want, but not "opensource" or "free software" because they're already taken, and support completely different values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your need to defend the purity of these terms but WP reflects the reality and in reality these terms are used broadly. The page structure already tries to distinct the them more clearly by having separated tables. Maybe renaming the page to a more general term List of video games with the source code available or List of video games under non-proprietary software licenses is a potential solution. Shaddim (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
shifted mari0 to source avaialble and expanded the explanation of this block. Shaddim (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Warzone 2100[edit]

I can't see Warzone 2100 in the list, even though Special:WhatLinksHere/Warzone_2100 includes this list. —  Ark25  (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, it's in the bottom navbox: {{Open-source video games}}, my bad. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ground Control[edit]

I think Ground Control should be added to the list, since it was made available for free. —  Ark25  (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

link, reference? Free as beer or as source code? Found only refernces for being freeware. Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
PS: in general, if a notable commercial software becomes open source under whatever license, this is a notable information, please report here, or add here.Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Darn. It's in the List of commercial video games released as freeware already. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More games[edit]

I found more open source and free games that should be added to the list (at least a part of them):

Pool games:

Atomix clones

Hangman clones:

Snake clones

Minesweeper clones:

Breakout clones

Pinball games:

Solitaire clones

Puzzle games

Board games

Artillery games:

FPS games:

RPG Games:

Space shooters & Asteroid clones:

Space Invaders clones:

Tetris clones

Game collections:

 Ark25  (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No! We shouldn't attempt to cover every game under the sun, see WP:NOT. As is usual for list articles, I think we should limit ourselves to listing games that have an article on Wikipedia, so they are expected to at least pass the notability criteria. -- intgr [talk] 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
intgr is right, only notable stuff. Notablity is given when a article exist ...or you provide proof on your own (refs). Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I don't believe the notability is the perfect formula in case of this list, but it's the best rule that we can use. Some games are quite very well made so they deserve to be in the list even if there are no references for them. For example FooBillard, BillardGL and WAtomic. Most of the other games don't deserve to be in the list because they are crap, not because they are not notable. In my view, all the open source games (and the freeware) should be included in a list - not in this article but in a sub-page of a project or even in a user page. It's a shame to lose them forever (link rot). I know, Wikipedia is not everything, but in case of such a list, Wikipedia (or Wikia maybe?) is the best place to keep it.
For the moment, such games can be mentioned in places like Talk:Minesweeper (video game)#Minesweeper clones or Talk:Breakout clone#More clones. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikia could be indeed the right place for a "all game list". But also this WP list could still grow further with well backed notable games. Shaddim (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC) is imho the best place to collect an extensive list. Matthias M. (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hedgewars, OpenRA and notability in an online encyclopedia[edit]

I believe you need to rethink this list. Hedgewars has just been deleted and the community hates you for that [17] while WarMUX is still here although the website is long dead. I suggest you move the whole list and most of the articles to wikia:gaming otherwise it is hard to explain to fanboys that this is an encyclopedia, not the website that covers everything where you need to promote your stuff as seen in the discussion about OpenRA in the community forums. [18] Yours Matthias M. (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We have to fulfill the notability policy in this list, but I think we have already a reasonable policy on this page: either "blue link" (notability shown on the existing WP page) or a explicite source here. About Hedgewars, I think this deletion was unfounded as many notable secondary sources (for search "hedgewars") are available. If a better sourced prototyp on the Wikiapage ([19]) is created and presented, another undeletion process try sounds possible to me. Shaddim (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Im thankful for the forum topic.Thanks Again. Will read on...[edit]

Im thankful for the forum topic.Thanks Again. Will read on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I really like and appreciate your article. Great.[edit]

I really like and appreciate your article. Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the forum.Really thank you! Fantastic.[edit]

Thanks for the forum.Really thank you! Fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough for the forum post.Much thanks again. Fantastic. Saulsberry[edit]

I cannot thank you enough for the forum post.Much thanks again. Fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm 22 years and I'm an alcoholic[edit]

Hello all, I just found this sub today. I'm not used to posting so please forgive any mistakes I make. I'm 22 years old and I have a severe drinking problem to the point that it has hindered my way of life and has greatly affected the way that I interact with others, especially my loved ones. I have anxiety issues which I'm seeing a doctor about but wanted to know if anyone else out there has had to deal with this issue, as well as if anyone has any advice to offer me, I'm trying to stop drinking but find its better to sink into oblivion than deal with my actual problems.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

Thank you all for the advice and support, it means more than you may think — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo removal[edit]

Katawa Shoujo does not belong anywhere on this page; it includes not only non-free (CC BY-NC-ND) content (art, sound, etc.) but Python bytecode as well. The engine is free (MIT), but there is more to the game than the engine and content.

See and for details.

-- (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for info. The game is on a fitting table specifically for games with non-free content. The missing scripts seems to be a minor issue according to the link. Shaddim (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Meridian 59 Removed?[edit]

User: Vermin96 removed an open-source game,Meridian 59, that already has its own page. Here is the edit: [20]. I would like to re-add it. Any opposition? Daenks (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem was, the content license was wrong, it should be freeware. Also, the game is already included here cheers Shaddim (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


I belive that OpenMW ( should be included in this list. OpenMW is a completly open source reimplementation of The Elder Scroll 3: Morrowind among with the function of the expansions and the Morrowind script extender. It has the ability to self import the morrowind copy with an already installed game or directly the disc. Currently is in progress the creation of a openMW template to allow creation of completly new games based on OpenMW engine, and in fact they are modifing a Total Conversion(stripping all Bethseda resources and replacing with handmade ones) to allow direct inclusion into the OpenMW software and allow more customization with the new engine. It is still in alpha stage. It use OpenSceneGraph. (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria appears to be entry must first have own article before included in list, or more broadly (per global criteria), there is a strong indication that article would be written in short order. If entry is notable, please create article for it. See: WP:Introduction, WP:CS, WP:REFB, etc., or just hit me up on my talk page for help doing that. -- dsprc [talk] 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone add Space Engineers ?[edit]

The Space Engineers c# source is available on github, but the game assets/etc are not. The game is not free but the source is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks, Space engineers is already here Shaddim (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability and existing articles[edit]

To clarify on the regularly upcoming notability discussion (and a current edit war): according to WP policies, a game should be notable to be included here. Main source for notability is a mentioning in proper seconday refs, which can be found e.g. here. Often, as kind of short cut for first method, notability of a game can be concluded by the check if an article exist, as an article creation needs notability itself. But, second method is only the shortcut version of the first version: notability of an single game can be given without an article or an series article. While the existence of an article is an indication for notability, it is not a prerequisite. Shaddim (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding this page WP:N where it says "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." that means the contents of a list do not have the same notability requirements of a page. Am I wrong? Taknamay (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Not directly but clearly interprete and debatable. I think the current policy is inside the spirit of the WP:N page and I would say the value of this list over the many lists which are available in the interweb is the focus, a focus created by limiting on "WP notable content" (typically defined by exisitance of an articles). Also, how should we limit such an list? An complete list of all ever somehow written games (tutorials, school kids tests, experiments, PD games etc etc) could go into the thousands if not millions, I guess? Other proposals and opinions how we could handle this? Shaddim (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection due to edit warring of an IP[edit]

Not done requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Space Station 13 engine license[edit]

The engine SS13 uses is BYOND, which doesn't seem to be under AGPL or open source at all: no "AGPL" string in the distribution, but there is EULA which suggests that it's proprietary, and a bunch of different licenses for components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to refer to this: LICENSE All human-readable source code materials in this repository are licensed under the GPL, version 3. All images, models, and rigging files in this repository are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license. while the github repository is called SS13remake, I'm not really sure what that means. The community of this game should answer on the forks/remakes/leaks and other ways of the code. Shaddim (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a developer of a specific fork of SS13, so I can provide some insight here. First of all: yes, BYOND, the engine SS13 runs on, is 100% proprietary and closed. That's analogous to having an open-source Unity project, Unity being propietary, but your code might still be open. The important part of SS13 are the BYOND-based servers. There are also many "remake" projects, attempts to move SS13 into a new engine, but none have "succeeded" yet and are not worth discussing. The project and its former website is one of those remakes, so ignore it. As for the BYOND based SS13 licensing: each server has its own code, and not all servers use the same license. Most servers are open source, but there are a few (notably Goonstation) which are closed. All other forks stem from a public release of Goonstation in April 2010, called r4407, which was under the GPLv3. Since then most of the open source forks have made new code be under AGPLv3, but again there are exceptions, so I just edited the page to say GPL or AGPL. For assets, all forks except Goonstation (CC BY-SA-NC use CC BY-SA 3.0 I believe, and since that Goonstation is closed I think the asset license listed is fine. PJB3005 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thank you for the infos on the complicated situation with SS13. I guess, the ss13 page needs than also significant updates and claifications... would you be so kind in doing this, in best case with good sources? thank you for your contribution! :) Shaddim (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of open-source video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)