Gameye vs. Edgegap
Premium performance vs. Edge location count
Premium performance vs. Edge location count
A container-based orchestration platform emphasizing edge distribution. Promotes 615+ locations across 17+ providers, with a “regionless” approach aimed at indie developers and smaller titles.
A managed orchestration platform built for demanding multiplayer games. Runs on premium bare metal from proven providers (Gcore, OVHCloud) with game-grade DDoS protection, consistent performance, and 120M+ sessions of battle-tested reliability.
The Decision
Choose Edgegap if location count is your primary metric and you’re shipping a smaller title. Choose Gameye if you need guaranteed performance, proven hardware, and infrastructure that scales predictably for AAA-scale launches.
Gameye is a managed orchestration platform built for the most demanding multiplayer games.
It provides:
Edgegap is a container orchestration platform focused on edge computing.
It provides:
But consider:
Here’s a breakdown of the key differences between Gameye and Edgegap:
| Feature | Gameye | Edgegap |
|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure Philosophy | Quality: Premium, proven locations | Quantity: 615+ edge locations |
| Hardware Consistency | Uniform high-end bare metal | Varies across 17+ providers |
| DDoS Protection | Game-grade (Gcore, OVHCloud) | Varies by provider/location |
| Scaling Model | Horizontal across regions → cloud burst | Edge-first, regionless |
| Egress Fees | None (included) | Usage-based |
| Track Record | 7 years, 120M+ sessions | ~6 years, limited public data |
| Peak Proven | 1M CCU live (Chivalry 2) | 14M CCU (benchmark test) |
| Target Market | Mid-size to AAA studios | Indie to mid-size studios |
| Region Control | Full control per region | Regionless (platform decides) |
Edgegap markets 615+ locations as a key differentiator. But more locations creates new problems:
When you aggregate 17+ providers across 615+ locations, hardware quality varies wildly. Location #1 might run latest-gen AMD EPYC processors. Location #450 might be older hardware with different performance characteristics. Your players won’t know which they’re getting.
Each location has different peering arrangements with ISPs. A location might be physically close to a player but have poor peering, resulting in worse latency than a well-peered location further away. More locations amplifies this inconsistency.
Gameye runs on Gcore and OVHCloud—providers who’ve spent years building game-grade DDoS mitigation. With 17+ providers, DDoS protection quality varies by location. During an attack, your weakest link determines your resilience.
Edgegap’s regionless model means you cede control over where sessions run. For indie games, this simplicity might be fine. For competitive titles where consistency matters, you want control. Gameye’s regional model lets you scale horizontally across proven infrastructure before cloud bursting—the same pattern used by the largest multiplayer games.
Edgegap frames regional architecture as outdated. But there’s a reason AAA studios use it:
This model optimizes for performance consistency, not location count. Players in Frankfurt get the same hardware quality as players in Dallas. Tick rates stay stable. Gameplay feels fair.
Gameye has run this model through 120M+ sessions, including Chivalry 2’s 250,000-player launch spike. It works.
Edgegap publishes a comparison that frames Gameye unfavorably. Let’s address some claims:
Correct—9 regions of premium, proven infrastructure with guaranteed performance and DDoS protection. We’d rather have 9 locations you can trust than 615 locations with variable quality.
Gameye is a mature platform. We prioritize stability over feature churn. Our clients don’t want their infrastructure changing every two weeks—they want reliability. Major updates are communicated directly to customers.
Enterprise game infrastructure isn’t a self-serve product. Our onboarding includes architecture review, capacity planning, and dedicated support. Studios shipping titles that matter deserve white-glove service, not a credit card form.
Chivalry 2 hit 250,000 concurrent players in the first 30 minutes of launch—on Gameye infrastructure—with zero downtime. Torn Banner Studios is happy to discuss their experience. Our 120M+ sessions and 7-year track record speak louder than benchmarks.
Doborog Games reduced server costs by over 60% after switching to Gameye.
“It’s reassuring to know that we could scale up indefinitely as we prepare for platform events and sales.”
— Brian Jordan, Co-founder & CTO, Doborog Games
Chivalry 2 launched with 250,000 players in the first 30 minutes—zero infrastructure downtime.
“We felt there was a personal relationship, and if there was a problem, we knew Gameye would be there.”
— Rasmus Löfström, Game Director, Torn Banner Studios
Yes—by design. Gameye operates in major population centers using premium bare metal from proven providers. We optimize for performance quality and consistency, not location count. Every Gameye location has game-grade DDoS protection and consistent, high-end hardware.
Nothing, for simpler games. But regionless means the platform decides where your session runs. For competitive multiplayer where consistency matters, studios want control. Gameye’s regional model lets you optimize infrastructure per region and scale predictably.
It’s a synthetic benchmark—40 deployments/second for 60 minutes in a controlled test. Gameye’s 120M+ sessions and 1M peak CCU are from real games with real players, including high-profile launches like Chivalry 2.
Multiplayer games are sensitive to tick rate stability and server performance. When hardware varies across locations, player experience varies. Two players in the same match might have different experiences based on which location’s hardware they’re connected to. Uniform hardware eliminates this variable.
Yes. Both platforms are container-based. Your Docker images work on Gameye with minimal changes. Our team can help you run both platforms in parallel during transition and optimize for your specific game’s requirements.
We strive to maintain technical, fair, and current comparisons. If you spot any inaccuracies or have suggestions, please contact us. We value your perspective and insights to improve our content.
Last updated: January 26, 2026