The Photon Forum
is Closed Permanently.

After many dedicated years of service, we have made the decision to retire our Forum and switch to read-only: we´ve saved the best to last! Your search result can be found below. Plus, we offer support via these channels:

Try Our

Please check if you can find an answer in our extensive documentation on Fusion.

Join Us
on Discord

Meet and talk to our staff and the entire Photon-Community via Discord.

Stack Overflow

Find more information on Stack Overflow (for Circle members only).

Write Us
an E-Mail

Feel free to send your question directly to our developers.

Fusion vs Quantum

2021-10-23 08:34:11

I am confused a little bit of choosing a photon product. Seems to me I should choose Fusion as I've started work with PUN 2. But what about Quantum? Is it a totally independent solution? Or it interacts with Fusion somehow? What is purpose of Quantum in conparison with Fusion? What are advantages/disadvantages of the both products?


2021-10-25 15:57:07

Fusion and Quantum are entirely independent APIs and approach networking from different angles.

Quantum is fully deterministic and essentially an entire game engine. A game written this way, does not have to worry about networking as such. Great networked physics and replays are just two things that come to my mind now. One downside: All clients know the state in memory - even if you don't show all of it, it could be accessed. So a card game with hidden hands is a no go. It has a monthly subscription fee of $1000, has a steep learning curve but can do stuff other networked engines just can't do with this level of precision.

Fusion is using state transfer and you can write MonoBehaviours. It supports different network architectures (so it fits different requirements), is tick based and relatively easy to learn. Contrary to Quantum, Fusion supports Area of Interest, so a host/server could hide some of the game state from specific clients (which is better for card games).

I linked to both product pages for more details.

2021-10-25 17:18:13

Thank you!

Back to top