Devil's Advocate:

FOSS is basically an endless development cycle. Anyone who wants to pick up and keep developing can. This has benefits and drawbacks.

I would say the main drawback is that you might be expected to work longer on this code than you plan to. The gaming community can be pretty demanding while also not stepping up to contribute themselves.

Further, it means some games can end up in unintentional "development hell" because there really isn't an end-state for the game. The nature of the game keeps changing because the person in charge can't decide what they want to go with long-term. The Duke Nukem Forever problem.

Now, indie titles like Terraria and Stardew Valley stand as examples that show an eternal development can be a good thing, but they're truly in the minority and they're really both driven by auteurs, which is why the themes are so crisp and well placed throughout the games. It's kind of hard to have a single brilliant auteur in charge of a giant game involving lots of people and have it work out. Look at the shitshow of an aftermath of what happened to the auteurs behind Disco Elysium. When you're part of a big team, some things always become a shadow of their original intent. Things become anodyne not on purpose, but simply because not everyone is on the same page. Designing a horse by committee results in a camel, etc.

It could work for small indie games, I don't think it would work for anything AAA-level.