Perforce vs Plastic SCM vs Diversion: Which Is Right for Your Studio?
Three version control systems built for large files and game development. Different strengths, different tradeoffs.
Perforce (Helix Core)
The industry standard for AAA studios.
Strengths:
- Proven at massive scale
- Native large file support
- File locking prevents conflicts
- Extensive enterprise features
Weaknesses:
- High cost (licenses + infrastructure + IT staff)
- Complex setup and maintenance
- Self-hosted burden
- Dated interface
Best for: Large studios with dedicated DevOps, budget for infrastructure, and teams already trained on it.
Unity Version Control (formerly Plastic SCM)
A more modern take, now owned by Unity.
Strengths:
- Better UI than Perforce
- Good large file handling
- Strong branching model
- Gluon mode for artists
Weaknesses:
- Unity ownership creates uncertainty for non-Unity projects
- Unreal Engine integration isn't first-class
- Pricing and roadmap in flux post-acquisition
Best for: Unity studios who want tight engine integration and are comfortable with Unity's ecosystem.
Diversion
Built specifically for game development and creative projects.
Strengths:
- Native large file support
- Cloud-native (no servers to maintain)
- Designed for mixed teams
- Unreal Engine plugin with Epic Games recognition
- Soft locks prevent conflicts before they happen
- Up to 70% lower TCO than Perforce
Weaknesses:
- Newer than incumbents
- Smaller ecosystem
Best for: Game studios, archviz, virtual production – teams who want modern infrastructure without the maintenance burden.
The decision
Choose Perforce if you're a large studio with DevOps staff and existing Perforce expertise.
Choose Plastic SCM if you're a Unity studio committed to that ecosystem.
Choose Diversion if you want modern cloud infrastructure, lower overhead, and a tool built for how game dev teams actually work today.