Video games are expensive even “free to play” games. You need to buy an expensive game console or PC that can run the games made in the modern day. Then, some games can cost upfront now $70 or more dollars. Then you got to buy the dlc, and the micro-transactions to get anything meaningful done on the game.
Some free to play games have paywalls you’l eventually run into to either progress, or to get more of the game such as cosmetics.
Open source games on the other hand are typically free for anyone with an internet connection and a device that can run the game, can play for free with hidden fees, or dlc, Micro-transactions. and no ads. In fact the closest thing you get to cost when playing a more demanding open source game to you is the device (some cases, the Monitor) and the internet connection even if just temporarily to download the game.
In Super Tux Kart, you got a modern ish looking game, opensourced, and is free and legal for anyone to collectively download and share this opensource game. Being an opensource game.
What would you pick capitalist games, or open source games?
Some might believe there’s only a handful of open source games especially if you only play them from the Linux repositories. Some websites might have creator putting their open source games on them, some of these might even be might even be playable in your web browser with html5.
This is just a false dichotomy there is not “AAA” games on one side and open source games on the other, smaller professionally made games exists and indie closed source games exists. U can buy, well made “modern” (whatever that means) games that are reasonably priced that dont have any micro transactions and that if they have dlc its good and worth buying, they exists there are lots of them. Open source games are fine but a game doesnt need to be open source to treat its audience with decency.