You Cannot Say You Shouldn't Have Listened to the Community While Asking the Community to Keep Talking
Something about the way game companies talk to their communities has bothered me for years, and SCI's recent messaging around Undisputed and its next boxing game brings that issue right back to the surface.
You cannot keep telling players:
“We're listening.”
“Keep sending us your suggestions.”
“Your feedback matters.”
“Players are at the center of everything we do.”
And then turn around and say that one of your mistakes was listening too much to the community and that you should have stuck with your original ideas.
Those are two very different messages being delivered at the same time.
Make it make sense.
From my experience working with developers, game companies, community teams, moderators, and people involved in videogame development, I learned something a long time ago:
Companies usually are not sitting around waiting for the community to design their videogame.
Developers already have ideas.
They already have design documents.
They already have meetings.
They already have features under consideration.
They already have systems being prototyped.
They already have priorities.
They already have roadmaps.
They already have opinions about what the game should become.
So when companies tell thousands of players to “send us your ideas,” people need to understand what may actually be happening.
A lot of the time, those suggestions are not being treated as instructions.
They are being used as validation.
The development team may be looking to see whether community feedback matches something the team already believes, already wants, or already has under consideration.
That is not necessarily wrong.
What I have a problem with is making the community believe something different is happening.
Collecting Ideas Is Not the Same as Using Ideas
Suppose developers already plan to improve footwork.
Then thousands of players start posting:
“We need better footwork.”
Later, the company announces improved footwork and says:
“We heard you.”
Technically, they did hear the community.
But there is another question:
Did community feedback actually cause that system to be developed, or did the feedback simply confirm something the developers were already planning?
Those are not the same thing.
If the company already had the system planned, just say it.
“We already had improvements to footwork under development, and your feedback confirmed how important this area is to players.”
I would respect that answer.
What bothers me is when marketing language creates an impression that players have substantially more influence over development than they actually have.
That is where I believe these messages can become deceptive.
Two Opposite Messages at the Same Time
This is where SCI's messaging raises questions for me.
On one side, players are encouraged to continue submitting feedback, suggestions, wishes, concerns, and ideas.
On the other side, Ash Habib has publicly discussed believing SCI should have stuck to its guns more instead of reacting so much to sections of the community.
Fine.
Then define the relationship.
Are players helping design the game?
Are they validating designs?
Are they identifying problems?
Are they helping prioritize existing systems?
Are they being used primarily for usability testing?
Are they helping developers find exploits?
Can community feedback actually change the fundamental design direction?
Or does community feedback matter primarily when it agrees with what the development team already wants?
Those are important questions.
Because “we're listening” can mean almost anything.
Listening Is Not the Same as Letting Players Control Development
I want to make another distinction clear.
A developer should not blindly implement whatever gets the most likes on Discord.
That would be terrible game development.
The loudest group should not automatically determine what happens to a videogame.
Listening does not mean obeying.
Feedback is information.
Suggestions are information.
Complaints are information.
Telemetry is information.
None of those should automatically become design orders.
The developers still need to understand boxing, understand game development, research the issue, test possible solutions, evaluate technical consequences, and make decisions.
But that is precisely why SCI saying it listened too much raises another question.
Was the problem really listening to players, or was the problem how SCI interpreted and implemented the information it received?
Those are completely different problems.
If you listen to the wrong people, that is a research problem.
If you change something too quickly, that is a design problem.
If you respond to whoever complains the loudest, that is a community-management problem.
If you cannot distinguish an exploit from an authentic boxer characteristic, that is a systems-design problem.
If one group complains, you change something, another group complains, and you reverse direction, that is not proof that listening to the community is bad.
It may be evidence that your feedback methodology was bad.
Stop Calling a Small Group “The Community”
This is one of my biggest concerns going into the next Undisputed.
Who exactly represents “the community”?
Discord?
Reddit?
YouTube content creators?
Steam?
Competitive players?
People invited to the studio?
Community testers?
People personally selected by developers?
People with direct contact with SCI?
Because none of those groups individually represents everybody who might buy a boxing videogame.
Where are the offline players?
Where are the Career Mode players?
Where are the simulation players?
Where are the casual boxing fans?
Where are the hardcore boxing historians?
Where are the people who purchased Undisputed and stopped playing?
Where are the people who followed ESBC for years but decided not to buy Undisputed?
Where are the Fight Night players who want another boxing game but did not like what Undisputed became?
Where are the players interested in creation tools, CPU-vs-CPU, Universe-style systems, promotions, trainers, amateur boxing, historical eras, and deeper simulation systems?
If SCI selects a small group of people and asks what they think, SCI has learned what that group thinks.
That is not automatically what “the boxing videogame community” thinks.
This Is Why I Keep Talking About an Independent Third-Party Survey
I have been saying this for a reason.
If SCI genuinely wants to understand the market, conduct a large independent survey.
And don't only survey the people already hanging around the official Discord.
Find different categories of players.
Survey people who love Undisputed.
Survey people who dislike it.
Survey people who stopped playing.
Survey people who never purchased it.
Survey offline players.
Survey ranked players.
Survey competitive players.
Survey simulation players.
Survey casual boxing fans.
Survey hardcore boxing fans.
Survey Career Mode players.
Survey creation-focused players.
Survey people who played Knockout Kings.
Survey Fight Night players.
Survey people who want boxing games but don't currently believe there is one worth buying.
Then publish the methodology.
Tell us how respondents were recruited.
Tell us how many people participated.
Break the responses into player types.
Show disagreements.
That part is extremely important.
Don't hide disagreement.
Maybe competitive players want one thing and simulation players overwhelmingly want another.
Good.
Now you learned something.
Maybe offline players overwhelmingly want deeper stamina consequences while ranked players want more standardized competitive balancing.
Good.
Now design accordingly.
Maybe the answer isn't forcing one system on everybody.
Maybe the answer is providing different rulesets.
Simulation, Hybrid, Arcade, and Competitive Do Not Have to Be the Same Game
This is something I have argued for repeatedly.
A lot of these conflicts disappear when developers stop pretending every player needs exactly the same experience.
You can have a Simulation foundation.
Then offer optional Hybrid settings.
Offer Arcade accommodations.
Offer Competitive parameters where necessary.
Online and offline modes do not have to use identical balancing.
Career Mode doesn't have to be damaged because something is considered problematic in ranked multiplayer.
CPU-vs-CPU doesn't have to operate under the same restrictions as esports.
A boxer does not have to lose his identity because competitive players find one of his authentic advantages difficult to deal with.
Give players options.
That solves far more problems than constantly redesigning the entire game around whichever group is complaining at the moment.
The Wilder Situation Is a Perfect Example
Take Deontay Wilder.
Wilder is supposed to be dangerous.
His punching power is part of his identity.
If there was an exploit involving his power punches, then fix the exploit.
Fix the tracking.
Fix stamina expenditure.
Fix recovery frames.
Fix vulnerability.
Fix animation behavior.
Fix defensive interactions.
Fix networking issues if networking contributes to it.
But don't automatically conclude:
“Wilder is too powerful.”
There is a difference between:
Wilder having exceptional punching power
and
the videogame allowing an unrealistic exploit involving Wilder's punching power.
Those are two entirely different design problems.
This is exactly why developers need boxing people, proper systems designers, telemetry, community feedback, film study, historians, trainers, boxers, referees, judges, and independent research.
You investigate.
You don't simply react.
Community Data Can Become Marketing Noise
This is another thing people need to understand.
Companies can collect tremendous amounts of “community data.”
Thousands of Discord posts.
Thousands of Reddit comments.
Thousands of Steam discussions.
YouTube comments.
Support tickets.
Social media engagement.
Telemetry.
Creator feedback.
Testing sessions.
That sounds impressive.
But quantity does not automatically mean representation.
You can have 20,000 comments generated by a relatively small group of extremely active players.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of quieter consumers might never post anything.
This creates self-selection bias.
The people most motivated to speak are the people being heard.
And then the company can say:
“We've collected thousands of pieces of feedback.”
Okay.
From whom?
That is the important question.
Telemetry Does Not Tell You Everything Either
Developers also collect enormous amounts of behavioral information.
Telemetry might show that people throw a particular punch constantly.
That doesn't necessarily mean players prefer that punch.
Maybe it is overpowered.
Maybe other punches are ineffective.
Maybe the tracking system rewards it.
Maybe stamina doesn't punish it.
Maybe defensive mechanics encourage it.
Maybe the community discovered the most effective strategy and started exploiting it.
Telemetry tells developers:
What players did.
It does not automatically explain:
Why they did it.
And it certainly doesn't tell developers:
What boxing should realistically look like.
That requires interpretation.
Behavior, Preference, and Authenticity Are Three Different Things
This distinction should be fundamental to any boxing videogame.
Behavioral data:
What players actually do.
Preference data:
What players say they want.
Boxing authenticity:
What accurately represents boxing.
Those three things can conflict.
Suppose players say:
“I don't want my boxer getting tired.”
That's preference.
Telemetry shows players throwing 130 punches per round.
That's behavior.
Actual boxing research shows that particular fighter historically doesn't sustain anything close to that output without consequences.
That's authenticity.
What should the developer do?
If the game is supposed to be an authentic boxing simulation, authenticity should matter.
Maybe the answer is not destroying stamina realism.
Maybe the answer is giving players different presets.
That preserves boxing while giving other audiences choices.
Boxer Identity Should Not Be Sacrificed Because Somebody Doesn't Like Fighting Against It
This connects directly with my Tendencies Bible and the boxer-identity systems I have been developing.
Suppose someone complains:
“Mayweather keeps backing away.”
Okay.
The real question shouldn't be:
“Do players enjoy chasing Mayweather?”
The question should be:
“Is Mayweather behaving authentically?”
Ali should move like Ali.
Frazier should pressure like Frazier.
Foreman should manipulate range and physically impose himself in ways consistent with Foreman.
Tyson should close distance differently from Frazier.
Hopkins should disrupt rhythm differently from everybody else.
Wilder should possess frightening fight-ending power.
Boxers should have strengths.
Boxers should have weaknesses.
Real boxing is not competitively “fair” in the videogame sense.
Fighters aren't clones.
They aren't supposed to be.
A player should not be forced to fight exactly like the real boxer, but the boxer's capabilities, tendencies, strengths, weaknesses, traits, physical characteristics, and limitations should remain evident.
That is boxer identity.
If community complaints continuously normalize those differences, eventually every boxer starts becoming the same character wearing a different skin.
That is not authentic boxing.
The Community Should Be Evidence, Not a Design Department
There is a healthier way to do all of this.
Community feedback should function as evidence.
Someone reports:
“The jab isn't controlling distance properly.”
Investigate it.
Someone says:
“Inside fighting doesn't feel right.”
Investigate it.
Someone says:
“Southpaw switching carries no meaningful consequences.”
Investigate it.
Someone says:
“Career Mode becomes repetitive.”
Investigate it.
Someone says:
“This fighter doesn't behave anything like his real-life counterpart.”
Investigate it.
Then developers combine that feedback with:
telemetry,
film study,
boxing expertise,
QA testing,
community testing,
technical analysis,
historical evidence,
and broader market research.
Then make a decision.
That is much better than:
Group complains → patch game → another group complains → patch game again.
Can the Community Ever Prove the Developers Wrong?
This is the question I really want answered.
Companies constantly say they value feedback.
Okay.
Can that feedback actually prove your developers wrong?
Suppose your lead designer believes something is working perfectly.
Then:
telemetry says otherwise,
QA says otherwise,
trainers say otherwise,
boxers say otherwise,
film study says otherwise,
an independent survey says otherwise,
and a large portion of players says otherwise.
Can the studio change direction?
Because if feedback is welcomed only when it confirms an existing internal opinion, then what you have is not really community-driven development.
You have confirmation.
And companies should just say that.
There Is Nothing Wrong With Having Your Own Vision
I actually want developers to have a vision.
I don't want developers blindly designing a boxing game through social-media polls.
That would probably produce an inconsistent mess.
But if Ash Habib wants to return to his original vision, say what that vision is.
Is the next game supposed to be a boxing simulation?
A competitive fighting game?
A hybrid?
An esports product?
A realistic boxing game with optional accessibility?
Tell us.
Then community feedback can be evaluated against that vision.
If the vision is realistic boxing and someone says:
“Make everybody the same speed because it's fairer online,”
the answer can be:
“No. That conflicts with our simulation philosophy.”
Perfect.
At least everybody understands the design philosophy.
But you cannot simultaneously tell people:
“This is your game. Help us build it.”
while also saying:
“Listening to you was one of our mistakes.”
without explaining the difference.
Developers Made the Decisions, Not the Community
This is another part that gets lost whenever studios talk about listening too much.
Players did not write the code.
Players did not approve patches.
Players did not determine the production schedule.
Players did not choose which Discord posts mattered.
Players did not determine which creators received access.
Players did not decide which feedback would be implemented.
Players did not decide how a feature would be changed.
Players didn't decide which systems would be cut.
The developers and company leadership made those decisions.
So if community feedback resulted in bad changes, the lesson should not simply be:
“We listened too much.”
Maybe the real lesson should be:
“We needed a better system for evaluating feedback.”
That is a completely different conclusion.
And frankly, I think it is a much more useful one.
Stop Giving the Community the Illusion of Authority
This is where I think game-industry messaging needs to become much more transparent.
Don't make consumers believe they are development partners if they aren't.
Don't create the impression that people are helping design your game when their primary role is confirming, rejecting, or prioritizing ideas that already exist internally.
There is nothing wrong with telling players:
“We have our own design vision. We use your feedback to identify problems, validate priorities, test assumptions, discover use cases, and occasionally reconsider our direction.”
That is honest.
That is understandable.
That is professional.
What frustrates players is when the messaging changes depending on what is convenient.
When feedback is useful:
“We built this with our community.”
When something goes wrong:
“Maybe we listened to the community too much.”
You cannot have it both ways without explaining exactly what role the community actually plays.
Show Me the Methodology
I don't need another slogan about listening.
Show me how you listen.
Show me who you're listening to.
Show me how participants are selected.
Show me how offline players are represented.
Show me how simulation players are represented.
Show me former players.
Show me dissatisfied customers.
Show me the people who never purchased the game.
Show me hardcore boxing fans.
Show me casual fans.
Show me competitive players.
Show me creators who criticize the game as well as creators who praise it.
Show me where different groups disagree.
Show me the questions.
Show me the sample size.
Show me the methodology.
Show me what feedback changed your mind.
Show me what feedback you rejected and why.
That tells me something.
“We're listening” doesn't.
Don't Give Me Marketing. Give Me Evidence.
This is ultimately where I stand.
I have been around boxing videogames and game communities for decades.
I've worked around developers.
I've dealt with gaming companies.
I've moderated communities.
I've watched how suggestions move through those environments.
That experience taught me not to automatically confuse community engagement with community influence.
They are not the same thing.
Companies can collect ideas without intending to use most of them.
They can collect data primarily to validate internal decisions.
They can use community language as marketing.
They can create the feeling that everybody is participating while a relatively small group is actually influencing the conversation.
That doesn't mean every developer is dishonest.
It means consumers should ask harder questions.
So when SCI says the next game's players will be important to development while its leadership also says the studio should have listened less and stuck closer to its original ideas, I want them to explain exactly what that means.
Because those two ideas can coexist.
A developer can have a strong vision and still listen extensively.
But the process has to be clear.
Tell players:
“We want your feedback, but you are not designing the game.”
Tell them:
“We are gathering suggestions to validate and challenge our assumptions.”
Tell them:
“Some things will change because of feedback. Some will not.”
Tell them:
“Our simulation principles are not determined by popularity contests.”
Tell them:
“When different groups want different things, we will explain which direction we chose and why.”
That I can respect.
But telling consumers that they are central to development while simultaneously blaming excessive community influence for previous decisions creates mixed messaging.
And until SCI explains that contradiction clearly, I am going to continue asking the same question:
Who exactly are you listening to, what influence do they actually have, and how do you know they represent the people you keep calling “the community”?
Because collecting feedback is easy.
Collecting suggestions is easy.
Saying “we're listening” is easy.
Marketing community involvement is easy.
The difficult part is proving that your process is representative, transparent, disciplined, and capable of challenging the developers' own assumptions.
Don't just tell the boxing videogame community you're listening. Show us how.
.png)
