To answer the main question: All types of games are “suited to open source” equally well.
REASON:
The core assumptions of this topic are seriously flawed.The main assumption here is that “open source” is a business model or a development model. This is completely false. Open source (or free software, which is basically a synonym) does,
by its own definition, do not dictate ANY development model AT ALL.
Free software is ALL about freedom, and so it open source (it's just free software rebranded and a slightly different definition).
You could perfectly develop a game completely alone, with no collaboration at all, yet still release it as free software. You might or might not ask for a fee. You can reject all contributions and patches, yet still don't violate FOSS principles. In fact, a large number of games only have one developer, both in the FOSS world and in the proprietary world (freeware/shareware), you just haven't heard from most of them because many one-person projects fail and burn. (They're still fun!
)
You could also develop a game collaboratively, over the Internet. This happens to be used in many FOSS projects, but it does not mean that it's the only way to make FOSS, or any software.
You could perfectly develop a game in a company with traditional work hours and sell it, but to those who you do sell it, you grant them a free software license.
You don't have to be a company and still have a business model. Maybe your game survives on donations, maybe you find other ways to make money, or maybe you decide you don't care about money at all. There are many other ways to make money (or not) with your game without violating any of the four freedoms and the open source principles.
It does not matter if you do waterfall, scrum, agile, non-agile, or whatever. Open source is not one of the development schemes.
Theoretically you could even do the naughty F2P business model and technically still release it as free software. OK, it seems unlikely to actually happen in practice. It's just an extreme example to show that licensing and business model are two entirely different beasts.
The main flaw in your thought process is that you take many wildly different development principles together (as long they are
somehow collaborative), lump them together, and call them all “open source”, yet that's precisely not what the term means.
Have a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_ ... ethodology. “open source” is not listed as a development methodology.
So the reason why all games are suited to open source is simply because you could release basically anything as open source, if you just want it (and have the rights or permissions). Open source is not a question of how you develop something (at all!), it's a question about what freedoms your end users have. Open source / free software is all about politics, and nothing about development models.
SUMMARY:
- In principle, ALL games a suited for open source
- Open source is NOT a business model
- Open source is NOT a development process
- Open source is defined by whatever freedoms are granted to the user, not more and not less:
https://opensource.org/definition- Development of FOSS is just like development of any other software, it's the politics where it differs
EDIT:
Lol, I just realized I basically made the same reply twice. Sorry about that.
I must have lost 10 IQ points on that day. Shame on me!