doc-slot-core-manual/docs/faqs/01-engine.md

sidebar_position

sidebar_position
1

Cocos Creator vs PixiJS

We've been working with Cocos Creator for a long time and have recently started exploring PixiJS. After gaining experience with both frameworks, we strongly recommend continuing with Cocos Creator as our primary game engine, based on the following points.

---

Full-Featured Engine vs Rendering-Only Framework

Cocos Creator offers a complete, feature-rich environment that significantly reduces development overhead and accelerates production timelines.

It comes with a visual editor, built-in animation tools, component-based architecture, and robust cross-platform support, making it ideal for both web and native deployment.

PixiJS, on the other hand, is a lightweight, high-performance rendering engine. While it's excellent for raw rendering, it lacks out-of-the-box support for essential features like UI systems, animation tools, and scene management. These must be built or integrated separately, adding unnecessary overhead, longer development time, and reduced team efficiency.

Cocos Creator Meets All the Goals PixiJS Aims to Solve

PixiJS is often considered for the following reasons:

• Creating a multi-layer framework for base games, slot games, and other genres.
• Adopting newer technologies like WebGPU and asset compression.
• Gaining full control over the game framework.
• Offering an easy-to-use, lightweight, and high-performance environment for the web.

Cocos Creator already addresses all of these goals:

• We’ve successfully used Cocos for multiple game genres (2D & 3D), including hundreds of slot games with diverse UIs and features.
• Cocos provides built-in asset compression and broad format support:
  • Audio: .wav, .mp3, .ogg
  • Textures: .jpg, .png, .webp, .pkm, .pvrtc
• WebGPU support has been available since version 3.6.2 (released ~2.5 years ago). Enabling it requires just a toggle in the build settings.
• While full control over the engine isn't usually necessary, Cocos Creator is open-source. We've already leveraged this by customizing the engine to power our slot games.
• Its Unity-inspired design makes it extremely intuitive, especially compared to lower-level frameworks like PixiJS.

Even though PixiJS may have an edge in raw performance, we've never hit performance limits in Cocos Creator that would require switching to PixiJS.

Cocos Creator Empowers Cross-Department Collaboration

Unlike PixiJS, which is primarily geared toward developers, Cocos Creator is a full-fledged game engine designed to support collaboration across the entire game development team — including developers, designers, and artists.

The visual editor is a powerful tool that enables non-programmers to contribute meaningfully throughout the development process. Instead of working separately on isolated parts, teams can work together directly within the same environment.

---

🎮 Game Designers (GD) Can:

• Build wireframes and prototypes to define early gameplay concepts.
• Design and position UI layouts without writing code.
• Configure enemy formations and movement patterns (e.g., for fish or shooting games).
• Set up animations using the timeline editor.
• Create and adjust level design elements for casual or social games.

🎨 Artists Can:

• Import and organize assets directly into the editor.
• Use built-in color picking tools for visual adjustments.
• Preview and tweak animations (Spine, frame-by-frame, or custom).
• Design multi-resolution UI that works across various screen sizes and devices.

Publishers Are Choosing Cocos Creator Over PixiJS

Across the industry, publishers use a wide variety of engines: Cocos Creator, PixiJS, Phaser, Cocos2dJS, and various custom JavaScript/HTML5 frameworks.

Among these, Cocos Creator stands out as the dominant choice.

Top 10 Publishers on Juad – Engine Usage:

Publisher	Engine	Version(s)
	Cocos Creator	2.4.4 / 2.4.10 / 3.8.2
	PixiJS	3.0.2
	Cocos Creator	Custom
	Cocos Creator	2.4.9
	Cocos Creator	2.4.9
	Cocos Creator / PixiJS	2.4.5 / 6.3.2
	Cocos Creator	2.4.5
	Cocos Creator	2.4.12
	Cocos2dJS	3.17
	Cocos Creator / React-PixiJS	3.8.2 / 16.13.1-7.1.1
	Cocos Creator	2.0.9

Info:

• Latest PixiJS version: 8.8
• Pragmatic is still using PixiJS 3.0.2, released over 10 years ago
• Latest Cocos Creator versions: 2.4.15 and 3.8.6

We're Deep Into Cocos Creator

Our current projects rely heavily on Cocos Creator. Our core logic, templates, documentation, and workflow are all designed around it.

Switching to PixiJS would require:

• Building an entirely new framework.
• Retraining our developers.
• Creating new tools and processes.
• Managing a split tech stack between Cocos and PixiJS teams.

The cost and complexity of such a transition far outweigh the potential benefits.

Technical Struggles With PixiJS

While evaluating PixiJS (v8.8), we encountered several critical limitations and technical issues:

❌ Unsupported Particle Plugin

• The most popular particle emitter plugin became incompatible with Pixi v8.
• The original maintainer abandoned the project.
• It was only revived later by a community fork, which may still have bugs.

🔗 Issue #211 – pixijs-userland/particle-emitter

❌ Container Auto-Size Issues

• Container components automatically resize based on their children.
• This behavior makes it difficult to implement fixed-size layouts.
• Layout solutions are fragmented across multiple plugins.

🔗 Issue #7 – pixijs/layout

❌ No RichText Support

• No built-in rich text support.
• HTMLText doesn't support the <img> tag or texture atlas integration.
• We can't render UI like this without heavy customization:

❌ No Built-In Text Shrinking

• Overflow mode for text shrinking is not supported.
• Current vs expected output:

Current	Expected

❌ Missing ScrollBar in ScrollBox

• The ScrollBox component lacks built-in scrollbar rendering.
• We had to manually modify its source to add this feature.

❌ Asset Cache Key Conflict

• Pixi uses asset names (not unique IDs) as cache keys.
• Duplicate names (e.g. btn-start.png) cause conflicts and unexpected behavior during asset loading.

Wasted Effort on Contributing to PixiJS

Each technical issue required deep debugging, community searching, and sometimes direct contributions to the PixiJS GitHub repository.

While we’re happy to contribute, this slowed down our internal development and shifted effort away from our product.

Some of Our Contributions:

• Invisible Graphics Not Updating

  • Severity: CRITICAL
  • Status: NOT FIXED
  • 🔗 Issue #11294
  • Contributor: Phu Lai

  

• Font Family Cache Bug

  • Severity: MINOR
  • Status: FIXED in v8.6.5
  • 🔗 Pull Request #11151
  • Contributor: Trung Le

  

• AssetPack Power of Two Issue

  • Severity: MINOR
  • Status: FIXED in assetpack v1.3.0
  • 🔗 Pull Request #105
  • Contributor: Trung Le

  

The Oppinions of our PixiJS Game Developers

While the development team is genuinely excited about exploring a new framework, even they do not recommend building or using the framework based on PixiJS.

Although we've successfully developed a full slot game for web desktop, the remaining work required to make the framework production-ready is substantial.

Furthermore, even once the framework is complete, the process of using it to build actual games is significantly more complex compared to the streamlined workflow we already have with Cocos Creator.

✅ Final Recommendation

Cocos Creator is proven, feature-complete, and deeply integrated into our current pipeline.

PixiJS, while powerful as a renderer, lacks critical features and requires substantial additional development. We've also encountered technical roadblocks that reduce productivity and increase maintenance burden.

For these reasons, we strongly recommend continuing with Cocos Creator as our main game engine for both current and future slot game development.