What does RMS think of video games?

Unlockable content is restricted to players who have made certain progress in-game. This is not free as in freedom. If a free, open-source game features unlockable content, is it unethical? Is it infringing on muh freedom?

rms believes in three different types of works:

1. Works of function. These carry out a specific task or assist in carrying out a task. e.g. a spreadsheet program or a book of recipes. rms believes these should be free under the four freedoms that GPL provides: the freedoms to use for any purpose, to study and modify, to copy and redistribute, and to modify and distribute.

2. Works of personal facts or opinions. i.e. a biography or editorial. rms believes that modification of these documents could be construed as anything from misrepresentation to censorship and contribute no benefit to society, so redistribution of modifications of these works should be disallowed for all time.

3. Works of art. rms believes that artistic intent is important and that it's important to artists. However, he's noticed that once a profitable work of art is no longer profitable, the artist is more than willing to sale their copyrights to Hollywood, who care nothing of their artistic intent. He's also noticed that most artists rarely have an opportunity to sell their rights to Hollywood. Therefore, he believes that these works should be protected from modification for anywhere between 5 and 15 years from the publication of the work.

Video games probably fall under #3.

However, a proprietary game running on a computer is capable of being as malicious as any other piece of software, so the source must still be open for study whether or not protection from modification is provided by law.