EVM-based chains (e.g., Polygon, Arbitrum, Avalanche) excel at developer onboarding and liquidity access due to their massive, established ecosystem. With over $55B in Total Value Locked (TVL) and a vast array of battle-tested tools like OpenZeppelin, Hardhat, and The Graph, teams can launch faster with access to deep pools of capital and users. For example, games like Aavegotchi and DeFi Kingdoms leverage this composability for in-game economies.
LABS
Comparisons
Move VM (Sui/Aptos) for Gaming vs EVM for Gaming
A technical analysis comparing the resource-oriented Move VM (Sui, Aptos) with the ubiquitous EVM for deploying complex game logic, focusing on performance, cost, security, and developer experience for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for the Gaming Blockchain
A data-driven comparison of the EVM's established ecosystem versus the Move VM's novel architecture for building the next generation of web3 games.
Move-based chains (Sui, Aptos) take a fundamentally different approach with a parallel execution engine and object-centric data model. This architecture, designed for high throughput and low latency, results in superior performance for complex game state—Sui has demonstrated over 297,000 TPS in controlled environments. The trade-off is a nascent ecosystem; while growing rapidly with SDKs like Sui Kiosk and Mysten Labs' tools, it lacks the depth of EVM's middleware and integrated services.
The key trade-off: If your priority is speed-to-market, deep liquidity, and proven tooling, choose the EVM. If you prioritize unmatched transaction throughput, predictable low fees for mass users, and a data model built for dynamic game assets, choose the Move VM. The decision hinges on whether ecosystem maturity or raw architectural advantage is your primary constraint.
tldr-summary
Move VM (Sui/Aptos) vs EVM
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven comparison of execution environments for high-performance gaming applications.
01
Move VM: Parallel Execution
Object-centric model: Enables parallel processing of independent transactions. Sui's Narwhal & Bullshark consensus achieves 297,000 TPS in benchmarks. This matters for games with thousands of concurrent players and micro-transactions.
297k TPS
Sui Benchmark
02
Move VM: Asset Security
Resource-oriented programming: Assets are non-copyable, non-droppable by default, preventing duplication hacks. This matters for securing in-game items (NFTs) and player inventories against exploits common in Solidity.
03
EVM: Developer & Tooling Maturity
Massive ecosystem: 4,000+ active dApps, frameworks like Foundry/Hardhat, and SDKs from Unity to Unreal Engine. This matters for rapid prototyping, hiring experienced devs, and integrating with existing DeFi/NFT markets.
4k+ dApps
Active on EVM
04
EVM: Interoperability & Liquidity
Dominant L2 landscape: Seamless bridging via Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon zkEVM, and cross-chain messaging (LayerZero, CCIP). This matters for games needing multi-chain asset portability and access to $50B+ DeFi TVL for in-game economies.
$50B+
EVM L2 TVL
GAMING PROTOCOL INFRASTRUCTURE
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: Move VM vs EVM
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for building on-chain games.
| Metric | EVM (e.g., Arbitrum, Polygon) | Move VM (e.g., Sui, Aptos) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Tx) | $0.05 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~4,000 | ~65,000 |
Time to Finality (Optimistic) | ~15 min | ~400ms |
Native Asset Standard | ERC-20 / ERC-721 | Move Object Model |
Parallel Execution | ||
Primary Language | Solidity / Vyper | Move |
Major Gaming SDKs | Unity (Web3.js), Unreal | Unity (Sui SDK), Unreal (Aptos SDK) |
pros-cons-a
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Move VM (Sui/Aptos) vs EVM for Gaming
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for high-performance game development at a glance.
01
Move VM: Superior Asset Model
Resource-oriented programming treats in-game assets as non-copyable, non-droppable types by default, preventing duplication bugs. This is critical for true digital ownership of NFTs and fungible tokens. Games like Sui 8192 and Aptos-based ARPGs leverage this for secure, composable items.
02
Move VM: Parallel Execution
Sui's object-centric model and Aptos' Block-STM enable parallel processing of independent transactions. This delivers sub-second finality and 100K+ TPS for specific workloads, essential for real-time game state updates and mass user onboarding events.
03
EVM: Unmatched Ecosystem & Tooling
Established developer stack with Hardhat, Foundry, and 4,000+ dApps. Cross-chain interoperability via LayerZero, Axelar, and Polygon Supernets simplifies asset bridging. Major gaming studios (Ubisoft, Immutable) build on EVM-compatible chains for immediate access to liquidity and users.
04
EVM: Proven Economic Security & Liquidity
$50B+ combined TVL across Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Polygon) provides deep liquidity for in-game economies. Battle-tested security model with a massive validator set reduces consensus risk. This maturity is crucial for games managing high-value asset pools and player treasuries.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
EVM (Ethereum, L2s) vs Move VM (Sui/Aptos) for Gaming
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for game developers choosing a blockchain foundation.
01
EVM Pros: Unmatched Ecosystem & Tooling
Massive developer adoption: 4,000+ monthly active devs (Electric Capital). This translates to proven tools like Foundry, Hardhat, and The Graph for indexing. Established standards: ERC-721A, ERC-1155, and ERC-6551 provide battle-tested blueprints for NFTs, semi-fungible assets, and smart accounts. This matters for teams that want to build fast using existing infrastructure like OpenSea, Alchemy, and Chainlink VRF.
02
EVM Cons: Performance & Cost Ceilings
Sequential execution bottleneck: Single-threaded EVM limits in-game transaction throughput, causing congestion during peak events. High, unpredictable fees: Mainnet gas costs can make microtransactions (e.g., item crafting) economically unviable. While L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism reduce costs, they inherit shared execution constraints. This matters for games requiring high-frequency, low-cost interactions.
03
Move VM Pros: Parallel Execution & Asset-Centric Design
Native parallelism: Sui's object-centric model and Aptos' Block-STM allow concurrent transaction processing, enabling massive scalability for in-game actions. First-class resources: Move's store and key abilities make in-game assets (NFTs, tokens) secure by default, preventing accidental loss or duplication. This matters for complex game economies with thousands of concurrent state updates per second.
04
Move VM Cons: Nascent Ecosystem & Fragmentation
Smaller developer pool: ~500 monthly active devs across Sui/Aptos (Electric Capital), leading to fewer audited libraries and production-ready tools. Protocol fragmentation: Sui Move and Aptos Move have diverging implementations and standards, increasing long-term integration risk. This matters for teams that prioritize a deep bench of hiring options and interoperable tooling.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Move VM (Sui/Aptos) for High-Performance Gaming
Verdict: The superior choice for complex, high-throughput game economies. Strengths:
- Sub-second finality & high TPS: Sui's parallel execution and Aptos's Block-STM enable 100K+ TPS for non-conflicting transactions, critical for in-game actions.
- Object-Oriented Data Model: Native representation of in-game assets (NFTs, items) as objects simplifies logic and enables dynamic composability.
- Low, Predictable Fees: Transaction fees are not subject to network-wide congestion, preventing the fee spikes that can break free-to-play models.
- On-Chain Logic: Enables fully on-chain game state and autonomous agents, moving beyond simple asset ownership. Best For: Massively multiplayer games, fully on-chain games ("Autonomous Worlds"), games with complex asset interactions. Example: Sui's object model is ideal for a game like Star Atlas, where ships, components, and resources are constantly traded and upgraded.
EVM for High-Performance Gaming
Verdict: A pragmatic choice for established ecosystems, but requires significant scaling layers. Challenges:
- Inherent Bottleneck: Sequential execution limits throughput. Base-layer TPS (~15-30) is insufficient for gaming.
- Fee Volatility: Mainnet gas fees are prohibitive; reliance on L2s (Arbitrum, Polygon, zkSync) is mandatory.
- Data Model Mismatch: ERC-721/1155 standards treat NFTs as static ledger entries, complicating dynamic in-game logic. Mitigations & Use Case: Use EVM via a high-performance L2 (e.g., Arbitrum Nova for low-cost transactions) for games where broad liquidity and existing DeFi integrations (e.g., trading items on OpenSea) are the top priority. Best for simpler, transaction-light games or game asset marketplaces.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Move VM and EVM for gaming hinges on your project's core technical and economic priorities.
Move VM (Sui/Aptos) excels at high-throughput, asset-centric logic due to its object-oriented data model and parallel execution. For example, Sui's consensus-free simple transactions can achieve over 297,000 TPS for owned object transfers, enabling real-time, gas-efficient in-game actions. This architecture is purpose-built for dynamic, composable in-game assets (like NFTs with embedded logic) and complex game economies, as seen in titles like Panzerdogs on Sui and Aptos Arena.
EVM (Ethereum L2s, Polygon, Arbitrum) takes a different approach by prioritizing ecosystem liquidity and developer familiarity. This results in immediate access to a massive $50B+ DeFi TVL, established tooling (Foundry, Hardhat), and a vast pool of Solidity developers. However, the account-based model and sequential execution can create bottlenecks for complex game states, though scaling solutions like Arbitrum Nitro push limits to ~40,000 TPS for specific operations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is unmatched performance for asset-heavy gameplay and novel economic models, choose Move VM. Its parallel execution and object model are a structural advantage. If you prioritize immediate ecosystem integration, deep liquidity for player assets, and a proven developer stack, choose EVM on a high-performance L2. The network effect and tooling maturity significantly de-risk development and player onboarding.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall