Triggair vs LootLocker: engine-first or web-first?

LootLocker and Triggair are the two backends most likely to come up when an indie asks "what do I use so I don't have to build all of this myself?" They overlap a lot: leaderboards, player storage, currencies, progression, UGC. The real difference is where they expect you to be building.

What each one is

LootLocker is a game backend aimed at indie and mid-size studios. It gives you player identity, player files and storage, leaderboards, progressions, currencies and catalogs, inventories, remote config, and asset hosting for user content. Its center of gravity is the game engine: it ships first-class SDKs for Unity, Unreal, Godot, and GameMaker, with a REST API underneath for everything else.

Triggair is a full backend for browser games behind one import and one publishable key. Same broad feature list (identity, saves, leaderboards, an economy, live-ops, competition, moderation, compliance, realtime, analytics; live realtime rooms start on the Indie plan), but its center of gravity is the browser and the JavaScript SDK, not a native engine.

So the question mostly answers itself by asking where your game runs.

Side by side

Where LootLocker wins

If you are building in a native engine, LootLocker meets you where you already are.

• Engine SDKs. A drop-in Unity or Unreal or Godot package is a genuinely better experience than calling REST by hand from inside an engine. If your game lives in Unity, this matters every day.
• Native and desktop targets. LootLocker is comfortable being the backend for a game that ships to Steam or a console, not just a web build.
• Established indie footing. It has been the "just use this" backend for a lot of small teams, and the feature set reflects real indie needs.

If your game is a Unity project, starting anywhere other than a Unity-native backend is swimming upstream.

Where Triggair wins

If your game runs in a browser tab, the engine-first assumption inverts and Triggair is the one meeting you where you are.

• Actually web-first. A publishable key that is safe in client code, CORS handled, and a JS/TS SDK that works with React, vanilla canvas, or whatever you glued together. No REST plumbing.

import { createClient } from '@triggair/sdk';
const tg = createClient({ key: 'tg_pk_your_key' });

await tg.saves.put('slot1', { level: 4, coins: 120 });
const { data } = await tg.saves.get('slot1');

• Moderation and compliance are in the box. Name and chat filtering, UGC review, disclosed-odds loot, and age-gating ship on by default. With most backends these are your problem to assemble; here they are a setting.
• Realtime that fits casual games. Managed broadcast rooms for .io-style presence, plus async and turn-based matches, without running a server.
• Agent-first. Every error returns a hint a coding agent can act on, there are MCP tools for setup, and a self-test that probes your live integration. Vibe-coding a game with an AI assistant is the intended path, not an afterthought.
• Flat pricing. A prepaid plan with a clear player cap, not a usage meter you watch nervously.

When to pick which

Pick LootLocker if your game is built in Unity, Unreal, Godot, or GameMaker and ships to desktop, console, or the app stores. The engine-native integration is worth more than any feature checkbox.

Pick Triggair if your game runs in the browser, you want moderation and compliance handled without a side quest, and you are building with an AI agent that would rather read a fix hint than a REST reference.

Neither is trying to be the other. LootLocker is the backend for the engine. Triggair is the backend for the web build.