All comparisons

Looking for a Nakama alternative?

Nakama is a full game server you run and extend; Multiplayer Agent is a hosted backend you call from the browser. If you want to own the infrastructure and write server modules, Nakama is more powerful. If you want a browser game playable this week, there is far less to do here.

The difference is how much you operate

Nakama is an open-source game server. You run it, or you pay for a managed instance, and you extend it with modules in Go, Lua or TypeScript. That is a real advantage when you need behaviour the vendor never anticipated, and it is genuinely yours: you can read the source, fork it, and move it.

It is also a service to operate. Somebody deploys it, watches it, upgrades it and is responsible when it stops. For a solo developer or a small studio shipping a browser game, that is often the largest single cost of the project, and it is paid in attention rather than money.

server logicdecides collisions, scores, winnersclient 1sends inputs onlyclient 2sends inputs onlyclient 3sends inputs onlyinputs upstate down
Both approaches end up here: clients propose, the server decides. The question is only whether you build and operate the box on the right, or call one that already exists.

What server-side rules look like on each

On Nakama, authoritative logic is a module you write, compile or register, and deploy with the server. That is powerful and it is also a build pipeline.

Here it is a small script you push with one call. It runs on a tick, clients send inputs, the server decides outcomes, and every deploy is versioned with one-call rollback and readable error logs. Less room to manoeuvre, much less to stand up.

Where Nakama is the better answer

It is the stronger choice more often than a comparison page usually admits.

  • You need to self-host, for data residency, procurement or cost reasons at scale.
  • You are building on Unity, Unreal or a native client. Their SDK coverage is broad; ours targets the browser.
  • You need matchmaking, parties, chat channels and social graphs as first-class server features rather than things you assemble.
  • You want to read and modify the server itself, or avoid depending on a vendor at all.

If the phrase 'we will run it ourselves' sounds like a feature rather than a chore, Nakama is probably the right call.

Where this is the better answer

  • The game runs in a browser and you want a shareable link today.
  • Nobody on the project wants to own a server, and there is no ops budget.
  • You would rather describe the game to an agent than write the networking by hand.
  • You want players, saves, leaderboards, player-made content and payments included rather than assembled.

Common questions

Is Nakama free?

The server is open source, so self-hosting has no licence cost, but it does have an operating cost in hosting and attention. Managed hosting is a paid product. We are hosted only, and priced on monthly active players rather than on instances.

Can I move off Multiplayer Agent later?

The networking layer would be rewritten, as it would moving between any two of these. What travels with you is the part that usually matters: player records, saves and leaderboard entries are exportable, and your game code is your own.

Do you support matchmaking?

Not as a dedicated service. Rooms are created on first join and a room name is the match, which covers link-sharing and lobby-by-name well and does not replace skill-based matchmaking.

Try it on your own game

The free tier does not expire and asks for no card. Add one script tag and have two people playing in about a minute.