Perforce vs Git for Game Development

The two most common version control systems in game development. Different philosophies, different tradeoffs. And a third one that has the best of two worlds.

How they're different

Perforce is centralized. One server holds the truth. You check out files, edit them, check them back in. File locking prevents conflicts.

Git is distributed. Everyone has a full copy of the repository. You work locally, then push changes. Branching and merging are core workflows.

Both work. Neither was designed specifically for game development.

Where Git struggles

Git was built for source code: small text files that diff and merge efficiently.

Game projects are mostly binary files: textures, models, audio, levels. Git stores these inefficiently, and it can't merge them. Git LFS helps with storage, but it's a workaround. Clone times suffer. Binary conflicts mean someone loses work.

For code-heavy projects or small indie games, Git works fine. For asset-heavy projects with large teams, the friction adds up.

Where Perforce struggles

Perforce handles large binary files better than Git. But it comes with:

• High licensing and infrastructure costs
• Complex setup and maintenance
• Dated interface that non-programmers struggle with
• Self-hosting burden

You're trading one set of problems for another.

What both get wrong

Neither was built for how game teams actually work in 2026:

• Mixed teams of programmers and artists
• Distributed/remote collaboration
• Cloud-native infrastructure
• Massive binary asset libraries

The third option

Tools like Diversion were built specifically for this. Native large file support without Git's workarounds. Cloud-native without Perforce's infrastructure burden. Interfaces designed for entire teams, not just programmers.

If you're choosing between Perforce and Git, consider whether the question itself is outdated. Check the full comparison between Diversion, Git, and Perforce.