A Call To Action: Boxers, Stop Giving Videogame Companies Exclusive Control Over Your Legacies!

Let the Boxing, Not Exclusive Licensing, Sell the Videogame!

By Poe | The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist | Poe & The Community Speaks...

It's time for professional boxers, managers, promoters, sanctioning organizations, and the entire boxing industry to reconsider how they conduct business with boxing videogame companies.

Stop allowing one videogame company to monopolize a boxer's name, likeness, image, and legacy through restrictive exclusive licensing agreements.

Boxers should have the opportunity to appear in multiple boxing videogames, just as they can work with multiple sponsors, clothing brands, advertisers, and other commercial partners when their contracts permit it.

Why should a boxing fan have to purchase three different videogames simply because their favorite boxers are scattered across three different companies with exclusive licensing agreements?

Why should developers have to compete over who can lock up the biggest names instead of competing over who can create the best boxing experience?

And why should a boxer limit their exposure to one videogame when multiple companies could potentially introduce their brand to different audiences?

The boxing industry needs to stop treating exclusivity as the only path to valuable licensing deals.

1. Let Every Boxing Videogame Company Have an Opportunity

Imagine EA Sports, Steel City Interactive, 2K Sports, and independent developers having an opportunity to negotiate licenses with the same professional boxers.

Muhammad Ali could appear in several boxing videogames, subject to agreements with the appropriate rights holders.

Mike Tyson could be represented in different games, each offering a distinct interpretation of his boxing style, power, movement, defensive tendencies, and historical versions.

Floyd Mayweather Jr., Terence Crawford, Canelo Álvarez, Gervonta Davis, Oleksandr Usyk, and countless others could potentially reach audiences across several competing franchises.

The companies would still need to negotiate and pay for their respective licenses.

Nonexclusive does not mean free. It means the rights holder can license the same permitted rights to more than one company.

A boxer would not automatically receive more money. However, additional licensing opportunities could generate additional revenue while expanding the boxer's brand recognition.

And unlike an exclusive arrangement, the success or failure of one videogame would not necessarily determine the boxer's entire presence in the gaming marketplace.

2. Stop Making Boxing Fans Pay for Licensing Wars

Let's consider a hypothetical situation.

A boxing fan wants to play a videogame featuring Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali, Floyd Mayweather Jr., and Gervonta Davis.

But imagine those four boxers are divided between several competing games because of exclusive licensing agreements.

Now the fan has to purchase multiple games to enjoy matchups that could otherwise exist in a single title.

Depending on the platforms, the fan might also face additional hardware costs.

That is not necessarily meaningful competition. It can become competition built around restricted access to the sport's personalities.

Fans should choose which videogame to buy because of its quality, not because a publisher has exclusive control over the boxer they want to use.

No boxing fan should feel pressured into purchasing an inferior product simply to access their favorite boxer.

3. Let Boxing Mechanics, Tendencies, Traits, and Attributes Sell the Game!

This is where videogame companies should actually compete.

Not over exclusive access to a famous name.

Not over who has the largest marketing budget.

Not over which company can secure the most recognizable cover athlete.

Compete over who can best reproduce the sweet science of boxing.

A realistic boxing videogame should distinguish itself through:

• Boxing mechanics: Authentic punches, combinations, counters, defense, footwork, pivots, clinching, inside boxing, and ring generalship.

• Boxer tendencies: How frequently a boxer jabs, pressures, retreats, counterpunches, feints, changes rhythm, or attacks the body.

• Boxer traits: Chin durability, determination, adaptability, composure, defensive discipline, recovery, and ring intelligence.

• Boxer attributes: Hand speed, punching power, accuracy, reflexes, endurance, balance, coordination, and technical proficiency.

• Individual personalities: Mannerisms, ring habits, signature movements, defensive postures, and characteristic reactions under pressure.

• Artificial intelligence: CPU-controlled boxers that make decisions according to their individual skills, experience, tendencies, and tactical understanding.

• Simulation depth: Authentic stamina, fatigue, cumulative damage, referee behavior, judging, corner strategy, and realistic knockdowns and knockouts.

• Game modes and customization: Deep career systems, boxing universes, amateur boxing, historical eras, comprehensive creation tools, and meaningful offline gameplay.

The real question should be:

Which company can make Mike Tyson actually box like Mike Tyson?

Which company can reproduce Muhammad Ali's footwork, timing, defensive reflexes, and ring intelligence?

Which company can distinguish Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s defensive mastery from Pernell Whitaker's?

Which company can simulate the technical differences between Roberto Durán, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, and Marvin Hagler?

Having a boxer's likeness is not the same thing as accurately reproducing that boxer's abilities.

A recognizable face accompanied by generic animations, interchangeable tendencies, and unrealistic movement is not a complete representation of an athlete.

The license gives the company permission to represent the boxer. The quality of the simulation determines how convincingly that boxer is represented.

4. Boxers Could Benefit Financially from Nonexclusive Licensing

Consider another hypothetical example.

A boxer negotiates one exclusive videogame agreement worth $100,000.

Alternatively, that boxer might negotiate four separate nonexclusive agreements worth $35,000 each.

That would produce $140,000 in total licensing revenue.

These figures are illustrative, not actual licensing rates or guaranteed outcomes. Individual negotiations, market demand, rights packages, royalties, and contract terms determine their value.

The point is simple.

A boxer does not necessarily need one large exclusive contract to create a valuable licensing business.

Multiple nonexclusive agreements could provide recurring compensation, royalties, cross-promotional opportunities, and exposure across different gaming audiences.

Exclusivity may sometimes justify a substantial premium. Boxers should compare that premium against the opportunities they give up.

Their representatives should evaluate the full commercial picture rather than assuming that the largest immediate payment is automatically the best long-term deal.

5. Why Should Videogame Companies Be Able to Control Boxing History?

Boxing history belongs to the sport's participants, institutions, and communities. Commercial rights to individual names and likenesses, however, belong to their respective rights holders.

A videogame company should not be able to prevent another developer from accurately representing major portions of boxing history merely because it purchased exclusive commercial rights.

Think about historical matchups and boxing eras.

What happens when significant athletes are locked into different franchises?

What happens when a development studio wants to build an extensive historical boxing universe but cannot license several essential boxers?

What happens when a boxer is represented poorly in one videogame and contractually cannot appear in a competing title that might do a better job?

These arrangements can affect more than videogame rosters.

They can restrict creative possibilities, historical recreation, simulated tournaments, fantasy matchups, and competition between developers.

Nobody should have to settle for an incomplete boxing simulation simply because the rights to the sport's personalities have been divided among competing publishers.

6. My Challenge to EA, SCI, 2K, and Independent Developers

If your company believes it can deliver the best boxing videogame, prove it.

Give consumers compelling reasons to select your product.

Produce better boxing mechanics.

Develop more authentic boxer identities.

Create deeper career and universe systems.

Offer better customization.

Build believable artificial intelligence.

Create realistic presentation, officiating, and corner systems.

Respect offline gamers, not just online and competitive audiences.

And stop relying on roster exclusivity as a substitute for innovation.

Consider what genuine competition would look like if multiple companies licensed the same 100 professional boxers.

One company might develop the most convincing simulation.

Another might create the deepest career system.

Another might build the strongest historical boxing experience.

Another might offer the most innovative Creation Suite.

The competitive advantage would come from the product itself.

The best boxing videogame should win because it is the best boxing videogame, not because competitors are contractually prohibited from including certain boxers.

7. A Message to Boxers, Managers, Promoters, and Boxing Organizations

Before signing a videogame licensing agreement, ask some important questions.

To the boxers:

Why should you give one publisher control over your videogame appearances for several years?

What guarantees exist that your likeness will be used properly?

What happens if the company delays, cancels, or abandons the project?

Will you receive additional compensation for downloadable content, promotional appearances, or subsequent editions?

Could a nonexclusive agreement with several companies generate more long-term value?

To managers and legal representatives:

Are you negotiating the best overall arrangement for your client, or simply pursuing the largest initial payment?

Have you calculated the opportunity cost of exclusivity?

Have you negotiated contract expiration provisions, performance obligations, appropriate approval rights, and protections for unused licenses?

To promoters and sanctioning organizations:

Are exclusive commercial arrangements unnecessarily limiting the representation of boxing?

Could standardized, accessible licensing frameworks support more developers while still fairly compensating rights holders?

To videogame companies:

If you genuinely believe your gameplay is superior, why should your competitive strategy depend on preventing other publishers from licensing the same boxer?

And would your videogame still stand out if every competitor had access to the same athletes?

That final question deserves serious consideration.

8. A Better Licensing Model for Boxing Videogames

I'm calling for a more open, boxer-friendly licensing framework that respects intellectual property while encouraging competition.

The following principles should guide that framework:

1. Nonexclusive licensing as the preferred starting point. Boxers and their representatives should retain the freedom to negotiate with multiple developers.

2. Fair, transparent compensation. Licensing deals should provide appropriate payments, royalties where negotiated, and clearly defined commercial rights.

3. Limited contractual restrictions. Any exclusivity should be narrowly defined, properly compensated, and limited in duration.

4. Protection against unused licenses. Contracts should address delayed development, cancelled projects, and situations where a licensed boxer is never included.

5. Accurate representation. Boxers should have appropriate protections against misleading or unauthorized use of their likenesses.

6. Reasonable access for smaller developers. Licensing structures should allow independent companies to negotiate packages suited to their budgets.

7. Consumer-friendly practices. Boxers and their representatives should consider whether particular licensing arrangements contribute to unnecessary fragmentation, excessive costs, or restricted access for fans.

8. Respect for existing rights. No developer should use protected likenesses without authorization, and no boxer should be encouraged to breach an existing contract.

These principles would not eliminate every commercial obstacle. Licensing still involves separate rights, including names, likenesses, trademarks, photographs, archival footage, and other protected material.

But they would provide a more competitive foundation.

9. To the Boxing Gaming Community: Stop Rewarding Exclusivity Over Quality

Boxing videogame fans have a responsibility too.

Stop judging a game's quality solely by its roster.

A company announcing 200 licensed boxers does not automatically make that company better than one offering 100 authentically represented boxers.

A famous cover athlete does not guarantee meaningful gameplay improvements.

And a marketing campaign promising realism does not establish that the mechanics actually reproduce boxing.

Ask the developers difficult questions.

Does every boxer move alike?

Are the individual tendencies authentic?

Do the attributes influence performance realistically?

Are punches mechanically different?

Does weight transfer matter?

Do offensive and defensive styles create meaningful tactical differences?

Can you play an entire offline career without mandatory online connectivity?

Are important gameplay systems included in the base product, or are essential features being withheld behind additional purchases?

Those questions should matter more than which company secured the biggest celebrity endorsement.

10. The Final Bell: Let the Best Boxing Videogame Win!

I want multiple boxing videogame companies to succeed.

I want EA to innovate.

I want Steel City Interactive to improve.

I want 2K and other established publishers to consider entering the boxing market.

I want independent developers to have meaningful opportunities to build something revolutionary.

And above all, I want boxing fans to benefit from real competition.

That does not mean every company must create the same videogame.

One might focus on a hardcore boxing simulation. Another might focus on a hybrid experience. Another might develop an arcade-style title.

Give consumers legitimate choices.

But don't artificially limit those choices through unnecessarily restrictive licensing agreements.

My message to the boxing industry is simple:

Stop automatically surrendering exclusive control of your athletes' videogame appearances.

Negotiate smarter.

Protect your brands.

Create more licensing opportunities.

Encourage genuine competition.

And make videogame companies earn our money through their gameplay, innovation, realism, authenticity, and respect for the sport.

A realistic boxing videogame can make a hardcore fan out of a casual.

But it takes authentic boxing to accomplish that, not simply a roster of recognizable names.

LET THE BOXING SELL THE GAME!

LET THE BEST DEVELOPERS WIN!

AND LET THE FANS BENEFIT!

Why Is EA Fight Night Getting More Attention Than Undisputed 2? The Difference Between Nostalgia, Sales, Broken Promises, and Consumer Tru

 THE BOXING VIDEOGAME BLUEPRINT/WISHLIST BLOG | OCTOBER 22, 2026

Why Is EA Fight Night Getting More Attention Than Undisputed 2? The Difference Between Nostalgia, Sales, Broken Promises, and Consumer Trust

By Poe | Poe Speaks… #BringBackESBC

EA Sports announces that Fight Night is returning after approximately 15 years, and suddenly the boxing videogame community is buzzing with excitement. Boxing fans, content creators, gaming publications, and people who haven't touched a boxing videogame in years are talking about EA's return.

Meanwhile, Steel City Interactive (SCI) has already announced that a sequel to Undisputed is in development. The company has established relationships with major boxing organizations, licensed some of the biggest names in the sport, and attracted millions of players to its first boxing game.

Yet EA announces the return of Fight Night with practically nothing more than a promotional image, and it generates enormous attention.

Why?

Why is a company that abandoned boxing videogames for approximately 15 years being celebrated while the company that helped revive the genre is facing skepticism from portions of the very community that initially supported it?

And here is an even more interesting question:

How can a boxing game that apparently attracted fewer buyers than Undisputed still command greater excitement more than a decade after its release?

I have followed the development of boxing videogames for decades. I have played the Knockout Kings and Fight Night series, and I followed ESBC before it became Undisputed.

I also remember the complaints, disappointments, and arguments surrounding Fight Night Champion when it was released in 2011.

Some people are acting as though Fight Night Champion was the perfect boxing simulation. It wasn't.

Others act as though Undisputed has nothing worth recognizing. That isn't true either.

But there is an important difference between commercial success, consumer satisfaction, brand recognition, and consumer trust.

And that difference may explain why EA's announcement is generating so much attention.

1. Fight Night Champion Wasn't the Commercial Juggernaut Some Remember

Before we start celebrating EA's return, we need to discuss some history.

Fight Night Champion was released in March 2011. It had considerable expectations attached to it because of the reputation EA had established with the Fight Night franchise.

EA promoted the game as a major step forward in boxing realism and presentation. It introduced Champion Mode, a cinematic storyline following Andre Bishop, along with new punching controls and other improvements.

EA News

+1

But not everybody was impressed.

Some longtime boxing videogame fans wanted more authentic boxing mechanics, deeper customization, more sophisticated ring intelligence, and a better representation of the technical aspects of the sport.

A cinematic story wasn't necessarily what those fans were requesting.

They wanted boxing.

And while Champion Mode became memorable for many players, it didn't resolve the larger question of whether EA had created a truly authentic boxing simulation.

What about the sales?

Historical estimates cited by Forbes in 2016 put Fight Night Champion at approximately 790,000 Xbox 360 copies and 1.14 million PlayStation 3 copies, totaling about 1.93 million across those platforms. These were third-party estimates, not a verified final EA lifetime sales disclosure.

'Fight Night Champion 2'

+1

Undisputed, by comparison, surpassed one million sales shortly after its October 2024 console launch. In April 2026, SCI reported more than 5.9 million unique players.

PC Gamer

+1

Those numbers require an important distinction.

5.9 million unique players does not necessarily mean 5.9 million purchased copies. Free access, promotional distribution, and other forms of access can contribute to player totals.

Consequently, the available figures do not establish a definitive like-for-like comparison of lifetime paid copies sold.

Nevertheless, Undisputed demonstrated that there was substantial demand for boxing videogames.

Its debut also placed it among the highest-selling games in the United States in October 2024.

Sports Business Journal

That deserves recognition.

However, sales alone don't tell us how satisfied those customers were.

A successful launch can establish commercial demand without establishing long-term consumer loyalty.

And that's where this discussion gets interesting.

2. EA Has Something SCI Hasn't Yet Established: Generational Brand Recognition

The Fight Night name carries history.

Before Fight Night, EA had Knockout Kings.

These franchises introduced generations of gamers to virtual boxing, including people who were not necessarily serious boxing followers.

For some, Fight Night represents childhood memories.

For others, it represents competition with friends, memorable knockouts, and the excitement of facing legendary boxers.

For longtime fans, it represents unfinished business.

That kind of brand recognition cannot be measured exclusively by sales from one installment.

When EA announces another Fight Night, people aren't simply reacting to one upcoming videogame.

They're reacting to years of memories and a franchise they thought might never return.

But here's something I want to emphasize.

Nostalgia is not the same thing as quality.

Just because EA made boxing videogames before doesn't mean the next one will automatically be realistic, technically sophisticated, or better than Undisputed 2.

The people who made previous Fight Night games are not necessarily the same people developing the new title.

A recognizable name doesn't guarantee authentic gameplay.

And if EA thinks nostalgia alone will satisfy serious boxing fans, it could make some of the same mistakes again.

3. ESBC Was Supposed to Become What Fight Night Never Was

This is where SCI's story becomes particularly frustrating for me.

When Esports Boxing Club (ESBC) was introduced, it represented an opportunity that boxing videogame fans had been waiting years to see.

Here was a smaller developer promising an authentic boxing experience, with an emphasis on the sport rather than simply creating another generic combat game.

For many of us, the appeal was straightforward.

We weren't looking for another Fight Night with different graphics.

We wanted ESBC to deliver the boxing simulation that neither Knockout Kings nor Fight Night had fully accomplished.

We wanted boxing fundamentals to matter.

We wanted differences in stance, posture, movement, punch delivery, ring positioning, boxer intelligence, and defensive capabilities to be meaningful.

We wanted the boxers to look, move, think, react, and compete like their real-world counterparts.

We wanted mechanics such as clinching, inside boxing, referee involvement, stamina management, judging, and corner strategy to work together as parts of an authentic simulation.

Some of those expectations came from the game's early public direction. Others were requirements that simulation-minded fans, including myself, continued advocating.

The distinction matters because not every requested feature was an explicit contractual promise from SCI.

Nevertheless, ESBC inspired a specific kind of expectation.

It offered hope that a development team was finally willing to approach boxing differently.

And I believe that early identity was one of SCI's greatest advantages.

It gave the project a reason to exist beyond filling the void left by EA.

4. Somewhere Between ESBC and Undisputed, SCI Lost Part of That Identity

Let me be very clear.

I am not suggesting that SCI accomplished nothing.

SCI brought licensed boxers, recognizable championship organizations, official branding, and a substantial roster into a market that had gone years without a major licensed boxing release.

Those accomplishments matter.

But the central question was never simply how many boxers or championship belts the game could feature.

It was whether the gameplay could authentically represent the sport.

And that's where I believe SCI compromised too much.

Rather than fully developing the simulation-oriented direction that initially attracted many dedicated boxing fans, Undisputed evolved into what I consider a hybrid experience, one where accessible, competitive gameplay frequently took precedence over deeper boxing simulation.

That is my assessment of the finished gameplay, not an official genre classification from SCI.

A clear example of an abandoned mechanic is clinching.

SCI's own October 2024 launch notes acknowledged that clinching had been removed because it did not meet the company's quality expectations.

Discover an authentic boxing experience.

Think about that.

We're talking about a boxing videogame in which clinching, an integral part of actual professional boxing, was removed rather than delivered as a working component.

Clinch management affects the entire structure of a boxing contest.

It affects inside work, referee intervention, recovery, pressure, holding, smothering, and the ability to disrupt an opponent's offense.

It is not some unnecessary decorative feature.

And that's only one of the areas that deserved deeper development.

A boxing simulation should also account for boxer-specific defensive responses, ring positioning, fatigue, footwork mechanics, and tactical decision-making.

When fundamental mechanics become secondary to convenience or competitive balancing, the simulation suffers.

The frustration wasn't simply that Undisputed had limitations. It was that the game many of us supported seemed to be moving away from the original reasons we supported it.

5. SCI May Have Sold the Game, but Did It Earn the Long-Term Confidence of Its Original Supporters?

This is a question that commercial sales figures cannot answer by themselves.

Selling millions of copies, or attracting millions of unique players, is a meaningful business achievement.

But what happens after those people experience the product?

Do they continue playing?

Do they recommend it?

Do they trust the developer's next announcement?

Do they believe the sequel will deliver the improvements that were missing from the first game?

That is where consumer confidence becomes important.

SCI's April 29, 2026 statement is particularly revealing.

Founder Ash Habib acknowledged that certain parts of Undisputed had not met the studio's quality expectations. He also announced that further content updates would end, with development resources redirected toward a sequel using Unreal Engine.

Ash Habib Statement

For a company, starting again with a different technical foundation might make sense.

But consider how that decision looks from a customer's perspective.

A person purchased Undisputed expecting the game to develop into a more complete boxing experience.

Some important systems were absent or incomplete.

Then, instead of continuing to improve the existing product, SCI announced that future efforts would concentrate on the sequel.

That naturally raises an uncomfortable question:

Why should a customer purchase Undisputed 2 on the strength of promises when some expectations for the original Undisputed were never fulfilled?

SCI deserves an opportunity to explain its decisions.

But customers also deserve the right to question them.

Consumer confidence isn't something a company can demand.

It has to be earned through the product, communication, consistency, and delivery.

And I believe that is one reason some fans are considerably more cautious about Undisputed 2 than they were about the original ESBC.

6. EA's Announcement Offers Something Undisputed 2 Currently Doesn't: A Fresh Possibility

On October 20, 2026, EA officially announced the return of Fight Night.

There was no gameplay demonstration.

No confirmed roster.

No career mode presentation.

No detailed explanation of its boxing mechanics.

No release date.

Yet its initial social media announcement attracted hundreds of thousands of views and tens of thousands of likes within approximately an hour, according to contemporaneous reporting.

Inven Global

That's remarkable.

But here's why I think it happened.

EA is selling the possibility of what Fight Night could become.

SCI, on the other hand, is asking existing customers to believe that Undisputed 2 will correct problems they have already experienced.

Those are two very different marketing situations.

With EA, fans can imagine a new boxing videogame that corrects the mistakes of Fight Night Champion and benefits from modern technology.

With SCI, customers already have firsthand experience with the developer's decisions, gameplay systems, updates, and unfinished ambitions.

One company is returning after a long absence.

The other is attempting to rebuild confidence after its first major release.

This does not mean EA deserves more trust.

In fact, I would argue that EA should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

However, I can understand why excitement surrounding the return of an established franchise might overshadow an existing developer's sequel announcement.

EA is benefiting from anticipation. SCI is dealing with expectations and accountability.

7. SCI Had a 15-Year Opportunity to Learn from EA's Mistakes

One of my biggest criticisms of SCI is that the studio had a tremendous opportunity to study what Fight Night did right and what it failed to accomplish.

EA had already established a foundation that boxing videogame developers could examine.

SCI didn't have to reinvent every system.

It could examine the entire Knockout Kings and Fight Night history, study contemporary boxing, and determine what could be improved with modern technology.

Consider the opportunities.

• Authentic, individualized boxing stances and posture.

• Proper clinching and inside boxing.

• More sophisticated defensive mechanics and counterpunching.

• Boxer-specific punching techniques and combinations.

• Intelligent referees with configurable tendencies.

• A meaningful corner system involving trainers, cutmen, and tactical adjustments.

• Career and boxing-universe ecosystems with organic development.

• More advanced boxer creation, editing, and customization.

• Distinct boxer personalities, habits, traits, and technical capabilities.

• Simulation-first gameplay, with hybrid and arcade options kept separate.

And these are only a fraction of the possibilities.

SCI could have positioned ESBC as the boxing videogame that moved beyond EA's limitations.

Instead, in my opinion, Undisputed repeated too many of the same compromises associated with earlier boxing videogames while also leaving out some mechanics that those games had attempted.

That is why I find the transition from ESBC to Undisputed so disappointing.

It wasn't just about missing features.

It was about a missed opportunity to establish an entirely different standard.

8. SCI's Greatest Mistake May Have Been Trying to Please Everybody

There is another important development worth examining.

In a June 2026 interview with Insider Gaming, Ash Habib reflected on SCI's development decisions and suggested he should have remained more committed to certain original choices instead of responding to competing demands from the community.

Insider Gaming

I find that interesting.

Because it raises a question I have repeatedly asked:

Which members of the community were influencing the game's direction?

Were they experienced boxing fans?

Were they people familiar with actual boxing mechanics?

Were they competitive online players?

Were they casual gamers seeking accessible entertainment?

Or were they content creators whose priorities might have differed from those of the simulation community?

All of these groups can provide useful feedback.

But they don't necessarily have the same objectives.

A competitive gamer might request gameplay adjustments to create balance between opponents.

A boxing simulation enthusiast might argue that authentic differences between boxers should remain intact, even when those differences produce difficult or uneven matchups.

Both perspectives can be accommodated, but they should not automatically control the same simulation rules.

That is why I've consistently advocated separate gameplay lanes.

Simulation should represent the sport as faithfully as technology and practical design allow.

Hybrid and arcade modes can provide additional accessibility, entertainment, and competitive customization without undermining the simulation foundation.

Trying to force every audience into one gameplay philosophy is a recipe for design compromises.

And I believe those compromises contributed to the disappointment surrounding Undisputed.

9. Undisputed 2 Is Not Without Potential

It would be unfair to discuss SCI's failures without acknowledging its second opportunity.

SCI has confirmed that the sequel is being developed using Unreal Engine.

Subsequent development information has discussed improvements to movement, boxer representation, motion capture, and network architecture, including rollback netcode.

Operation Sports

These are meaningful technical areas to address.

However, changing engines does not automatically create a realistic boxing videogame.

Neither does hiring experienced developers.

Neither does signing another 100 licensed boxers.

A developer can have excellent technology and still make poor gameplay design decisions.

A boxer can look extremely realistic standing in a character-selection screen and still move unnaturally once the opening bell rings.

And the most sophisticated graphics engine in the world cannot compensate for missing boxing fundamentals.

What I want to know is whether SCI has reconsidered its underlying gameplay philosophy.

Is the new game being designed as an authentic boxing simulation?

Will removed mechanics return?

Will the game support different approaches to gameplay without compromising the simulation?

Will the boxer identity systems become more sophisticated?

And will SCI commit to completing the fundamental mechanics before promoting additional licensed content?

Those questions matter far more to me than another promotional announcement.

10. EA Doesn't Get a Free Pass Just Because Fight Night Is Back

Some people might interpret my criticism of SCI as support for EA.

That would be a mistake.

I have been critical of EA's boxing videogames for years.

Fight Night Champion was not the ultimate boxing simulation.

It had shortcomings involving movement, boxing intelligence, realism, customization, and mechanics that deserved further development.

And EA effectively left the boxing videogame market for approximately 15 years.

Let's not forget that.

The company now has the opportunity to return to a market that another developer helped prove was commercially viable.

But EA hasn't demonstrated that its upcoming product is superior to Undisputed 2.

As of October 22, 2026, we haven't seen enough to make that judgment.

Furthermore, EA cannot simply rely on the reputation of its former development teams.

People who helped establish the earlier games, including influential developers such as Brian Hayes, should not be assumed to be involved in the new project.

The new team will have to establish its own credibility.

And whoever develops the next Fight Night must answer the same basic question SCI should have answered from the beginning:

Are you creating a realistic boxing simulation or another boxing-themed videogame designed primarily around accessibility and competitive entertainment?

There's room for multiple kinds of boxing games.

But be transparent about which kind you're making.

11. Content Creators May Be Contributing to the Attention Gap

There's another part of this discussion that deserves attention.

Content creators.

When SCI was building ESBC and Undisputed, many creators saw an opportunity to establish themselves within a growing boxing videogame community.

They covered announcements, interviewed developers, promoted features, and helped generate awareness.

Some offered legitimate criticism.

Others appeared far more interested in maintaining positive relationships with the developer.

Now EA is back.

And EA has a much larger established sports-gaming presence.

That creates a new opportunity for content creators who want early access, interviews, exclusive information, community partnerships, or potential promotional relationships.

I expect many creators to cover both games.

Others may concentrate on whichever company provides the greatest audience interest or professional opportunities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

But here's where I have a problem.

A content creator shouldn't suddenly discover Undisputed's shortcomings merely because EA has returned.

If someone defended missing features, dismissed legitimate boxing criticism, or attacked simulation-minded fans throughout Undisputed's development, they should be prepared to explain a sudden change in position.

Likewise, those same creators shouldn't automatically declare EA's next Fight Night superior before seeing the gameplay.

Their responsibility should be to inform their audience accurately.

Not simply promote whichever brand currently generates the most attention.

That standard should apply equally to SCI and EA.

12. The Real Difference Is That Fight Night Has History While Undisputed Has Unresolved Questions

This brings me back to the original question.

Why is EA's Fight Night announcement attracting so much attention?

Because EA has a recognizable franchise, a larger established audience, and a history that reaches across multiple generations of gamers.

Because fans have waited approximately 15 years for the series to return.

Because the new announcement creates curiosity about what a modern Fight Night could accomplish.

And because the return of EA means SCI will no longer enjoy the same absence of a major franchise competitor.

However, I also believe another factor deserves serious consideration.

Undisputed 2 is being judged in the shadow of Undisputed.

SCI cannot completely separate its new game from its previous decisions.

It cannot erase the transition from ESBC.

It cannot pretend that removed mechanics, unfinished systems, gameplay compromises, and consumer dissatisfaction never happened.

And it cannot assume that everybody who purchased Undisputed will automatically purchase the sequel.

Customers remember their experiences.

That's simply how consumer confidence works.

The first ESBC generated excitement because people believed it could become something fundamentally different from Fight Night.

The sequel now has the responsibility of demonstrating that SCI can deliver on that potential.

13. Here's What I Want Both Companies to Understand

I don't want SCI to fail.

I don't want EA to fail.

And I don't want boxing videogame fans forced into another decade of accepting whatever the only major developer is willing to produce.

I want competition.

I want developers challenging one another.

I want technical innovation.

I want deeper gameplay systems.

I want boxer authenticity.

I want developers consulting qualified boxing trainers, historians, referees, judges, technical analysts, experienced boxers, and knowledgeable boxing videogame players.

And I want fans who prefer authentic simulation to receive the same consideration as those who prefer casual and competitive entertainment.

Both companies should recognize something extremely important.

Boxing is not a fighting-game genre invented by videogame developers. It is a real sport with established techniques, strategies, rules, traditions, and individual competitors.

The foundation for a realistic boxing game already exists.

It's called boxing.

The developer's responsibility is to translate that foundation into an interactive simulation.

Not rewrite the sport simply because certain mechanics are difficult to implement.

And certainly not market authenticity while treating integral parts of boxing as disposable.

Final Thoughts: SCI Sold a Boxing Game. EA Is Selling the Return of a Franchise. Neither Has Yet Delivered the Ultimate Simulation.

Let's put this entire situation into perspective.

SCI deserves credit for proving that a new licensed boxing videogame could reach a substantial modern audience.

EA deserves recognition for its historical contribution to boxing videogames and for bringing back a franchise that many fans thought had been abandoned permanently.

But neither company has earned the right to declare victory in the race to create the ultimate boxing simulation.

Not yet.

EA has nostalgia, resources, name recognition, and the benefit of renewed interest.

SCI has an existing product, technical experience gained from its development, licensing relationships, and knowledge of what did and didn't work.

Both companies have advantages.

Both have something to prove.

And both have disappointed portions of the boxing videogame community in different ways.

But SCI faces a particular challenge.

The original ESBC was supposed to be more than another boxing game.

For many early supporters, it represented the opportunity to deliver everything Fight Night had failed to accomplish and expand far beyond that foundation.

That opportunity was extraordinary.

And I believe SCI compromised much of what made it special.

Now EA has returned, and the excitement surrounding Fight Night is a reminder that the market doesn't owe any developer permanent loyalty.

A company can sell millions of copies, achieve commercial success, and still leave an opening for a competitor that promises something different.

But EA should also be careful.

Because the same people celebrating Fight Night's return today may become its harshest critics tomorrow if the developer repeats the mistakes of the past.

Ultimately, I don't care which company wins the publicity battle.

I care about which company actually delivers the better boxing videogame.

And even more importantly, I care about whether either company is finally willing to create a genuinely realistic boxing simulation.

The biggest question isn't why Fight Night is receiving more attention than Undisputed 2.

The biggest question is whether SCI or EA has the vision, discipline, expertise, and commitment to deliver the boxing simulation fans have been requesting for decades.

Because announcements don't make great boxing videogames.

Licensing agreements don't make great boxing videogames.

Celebrity endorsements don't make great boxing videogames.

And millions of players don't automatically make a boxing videogame realistic.

Gameplay systems, authenticity, depth, technical execution, and the willingness to respect the sport do.

A Realistic Boxing Game Can Make a Hardcore Fan Out of a Casual.

Poe Speaks… #BringBackESBC

Questions for the boxing videogame community: Has EA earned your excitement simply because Fight Night is returning? Has SCI earned your confidence in Undisputed 2? Do you believe SCI abandoned too much of the original ESBC direction? And if both companies released their games tomorrow, what would matter more to you: the brand name or the authenticity of the boxing?

SCI Is Poking the Bear: Does Undisputed Really Want to Challenge EA Sports?

 

By Poe | The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist | Poe & The Community Speaks...

SCI, Be Careful What You Wish For!

Steel City Interactive (SCI), the developer behind Undisputed, has decided to throw a few verbal punches at Electronic Arts (EA) following the announcement of the return of the Fight Night franchise.

SCI's response to EA's announcement was:

"The fight is never over? We'll see you in the ring 😉🥊"

Now, I have a question.

Does SCI really understand who it's challenging?

There is nothing wrong with competition. In fact, I have argued for years that the boxing videogame industry desperately needs more competition. Competition encourages innovation, forces developers to improve their products, and gives consumers alternatives.

But there is a difference between welcoming competition and provoking a company that possesses significantly more experience, financial resources, development infrastructure, and worldwide recognition.

SCI might want to reconsider how hard it pokes this particular bear.

And before anyone misunderstands my position, let me make something clear.

I am not an EA loyalist, and I am certainly not giving EA a free pass. Neither EA's previous boxing games nor Undisputed delivered the level of realistic boxing simulation that I have advocated for decades.

However, I also recognize the enormous difference between the resources available to these two companies.

1. EA Generated More Excitement With an Announcement Than SCI Has Managed in a Long Time

Consider the reaction to EA's return.

Within hours of the announcement, boxing fans, videogame enthusiasts, content creators, and people who had not played a boxing videogame in years were discussing Fight Night.

Early reports indicated that EA's announcement attracted millions of social-media views.

That is remarkable for a franchise that has been absent since Fight Night Champion was released in 2011.

Think about that.

EA did not have to show an extensive gameplay demonstration, a complete roster, a detailed career mode, or a finished boxing videogame to generate considerable attention.

The Fight Night name alone was enough to get people talking.

I suspect EA's announcement generated more attention in a single day than many of SCI's announcements received over much longer periods. However, a direct one-day-versus-one-year comparison would require verified figures using the same metrics.

Nevertheless, the difference in brand recognition should concern SCI.

That doesn't mean the next Fight Night will automatically be successful.

It means EA already possesses something SCI has been working to build: substantial recognition among multiple generations of boxing videogame consumers.

And SCI should not underestimate what that recognition means.

2. SCI Is Challenging a Company With Decades of Sports Videogame Experience

Let's put things into perspective.

EA has decades of experience developing and publishing sports videogames, including:

• Knockout Kings

• Fight Night

• EA Sports UFC

• Madden NFL

• EA Sports FC, formerly FIFA

• NHL

• Other licensed sports properties

SCI, on the other hand, is a considerably smaller developer whose commercial boxing videogame experience is primarily associated with Undisputed.

Does that automatically mean EA will develop a superior boxing videogame?

Absolutely not.

Experience and money do not guarantee authenticity, realism, competent development decisions, or consumer satisfaction.

But resources matter.

EA has an established international marketing and distribution infrastructure, experience managing large sports rosters, relationships throughout the sports industry, and access to development technologies and personnel.

SCI cannot simply dismiss those advantages.

And while SCI can point to the fact that it has already released a modern boxing videogame, that achievement does not place the company on equal footing with EA in every aspect of sports videogame development.

SCI has experience developing Undisputed. EA has experience developing and marketing entire generations of major sports videogames.

Those are two different levels of organizational experience.

3. Don't Confuse Social Media Confidence With Development Capability

There is something that bothers me about the way videogame companies sometimes communicate with consumers.

Marketing confidence can begin to overshadow actual development achievements.

A clever social-media response might generate likes, shares, reactions, and headlines, but none of those things improve the videogame itself.

Social-media engagement does not implement realistic clinching.

It does not fix unnatural boxer stances.

It does not create convincing inside boxing.

It does not improve defensive reactions, balance, footwork, referee behavior, or artificial intelligence.

And it certainly does not produce a comprehensive boxing ecosystem.

SCI has received criticism from consumers regarding these very systems.

Some features that boxing enthusiasts expected to see in Undisputed were absent, limited, or implemented differently from what they anticipated.

I have discussed these concerns repeatedly, not because I want SCI to fail, but because I want boxing videogames to evolve.

So when SCI publicly challenges EA, I have to ask:

Wouldn't it be more productive to demonstrate what Undisputed 2 is going to do differently?

Show consumers meaningful gameplay improvements.

Show us authentic boxer-specific movement.

Show us realistic clinching and inside boxing.

Show us intelligent defensive positioning, referee involvement, comprehensive career systems, and the boxing features that have been requested for years.

That would be a much stronger statement than telling EA, "We'll see you in the ring."

4. SCI Might Be Giving EA Free Advertising

There is another possibility that shouldn't be overlooked.

By responding directly to EA's announcement, SCI may be helping to amplify the very company it intends to challenge.

Think about how marketing works.

When a smaller company publicly challenges a much larger and more recognizable competitor, the smaller company can benefit from the association.

SCI may receive additional attention from consumers who otherwise would not be discussing Undisputed.

That is a legitimate marketing strategy.

However, the strategy works both ways.

Every conversation comparing Undisputed to Fight Night reminds consumers that EA is returning to the boxing videogame industry.

Every challenge creates another opportunity for consumers to ask what EA might deliver that SCI hasn't.

And if EA reveals impressive gameplay, extensive licensing agreements, innovative systems, and comprehensive game modes, the same comparison SCI is encouraging could begin working against it.

SCI may be using EA's announcement to promote Undisputed, but it could also be reminding consumers that a potentially formidable alternative is coming.

That is the risk of publicly challenging a competitor before consumers have seen what both companies intend to offer.

5. EA Is Not the Same Fight Night Development Team From 2011

Before anyone starts celebrating EA's return as a guaranteed victory, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed.

The original development personnel responsible for the previous Fight Night games cannot simply be assumed to be returning.

Brian Hayes, who played an important role in the franchise's development, is one of the notable names no longer associated with that original team.

Other developers and contributors have also moved on over the years.

That matters.

A franchise name does not develop a videogame.

Developers, designers, programmers, animators, technical specialists, researchers, producers, and knowledgeable boxing consultants develop videogames.

EA has not yet demonstrated that its new boxing project will reproduce the strengths of its earlier releases, let alone advance beyond them.

Will EA build upon its previous boxing systems?

Will it adopt modern technology to achieve greater physical realism?

Will it properly study boxer-specific techniques, movement, defensive habits, personalities, and tendencies?

Will it develop a meaningful simulation experience rather than focus primarily on competitive online balance?

Those questions remain unanswered.

The returning Fight Night brand should generate excitement, but it should also generate scrutiny.

EA has resources.

Now it needs to demonstrate how those resources will be used.

6. Undisputed 2 Cannot Depend on Licensing and Marketing Alone

SCI has already demonstrated that it can secure recognizable boxing personalities and important licensing agreements.

The presence of Muhammad Ali, other legendary boxers, contemporary champions, and major sanctioning organizations gives the Undisputed franchise considerable presentation and marketing value.

But how much does licensing really matter when fundamental boxing systems remain limited?

Muhammad Ali's presence does not automatically produce Muhammad Ali's movement.

A licensed belt does not automatically create an authentic championship ecosystem.

Having a recognizable boxer on the cover does not mean that boxer behaves accurately inside the ring.

Authenticity requires more than official names, recognizable faces, and licensed equipment.

It requires authentic mechanical behavior.

It requires individualized boxer identities.

It requires a developer to understand why Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, and Floyd Mayweather Jr. approached boxing differently.

Their differences should be represented through interconnected tendencies, attributes, traits, capabilities, techniques, reactions, defensive choices, footwork, and ring intelligence.

This is the kind of development SCI should be prioritizing for its next game.

And EA should be held to precisely the same standard.

7. EA Doesn't Have to Respond to Every Challenge

There is something to be said for allowing a product to speak for itself.

If EA intends to compete seriously in the boxing videogame market, it does not need to answer every social-media challenge from SCI.

It needs to demonstrate a credible product.

Imagine EA releasing an extended, unedited gameplay demonstration featuring two boxers with dramatically different styles.

Imagine that demonstration includes authentic footwork, realistic defensive reactions, intelligent inside boxing, fluid clinching, believable fatigue, advanced boxer-specific AI, and a functioning in-ring referee.

Then imagine EA following that demonstration with a comprehensive breakdown of its Career Mode, Creation Suite, boxing organizations, and offline simulation systems.

That would generate a much more meaningful discussion than trading clever remarks online.

Of course, those are hypothetical examples, not announced features.

But they illustrate the type of competitive advantage EA could establish if it applies its resources intelligently.

EA doesn't need to win a social-media exchange. It needs to deliver a boxing videogame worth playing.

The same applies to SCI.

8. Content Creators May Find Themselves in an Uncomfortable Position

Another interesting consequence of EA's return involves the boxing videogame content creator community.

For years, Undisputed has occupied an unusually prominent position because there has been no new major Fight Night release to compete directly with it.

Some content creators have developed their audiences around Undisputed.

Others have received promotional opportunities, access, or recognition associated with SCI.

What happens when EA begins expanding its marketing campaign?

Will some creators shift their attention toward the returning Fight Night franchise?

Certainly, some will want to cover both games. Others may pursue exclusive promotional relationships, depending on the opportunities available.

That raises an important question about independent criticism.

Will content creators evaluate both boxing videogames honestly, or will access, sponsorships, and promotional opportunities influence how they present each product?

I believe boxing consumers deserve reviewers and creators who can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both games without treating criticism as disloyalty.

Competition should improve the quality of videogames and the quality of consumer information.

It should not become an excuse for competing marketing campaigns disguised as independent analysis.

9. SCI Should Remember Why Consumers Have Criticized Undisputed

Let me make something perfectly clear.

SCI's biggest problem isn't necessarily EA.

It is whether SCI can demonstrate meaningful progress on the concerns raised about its own product.

Consumers have questioned or criticized several aspects of Undisputed, including:

• Boxer stances, postures, and individualized movement

• Clinching and authentic inside boxing

• Punch impact, weight transfer, and defensive reactions

• Stamina, fatigue, and accumulated physical deterioration

• Boxer-specific AI, tendencies, and ring intelligence

• Referee presence and authentic officiating

• Career Mode depth and the broader boxing ecosystem

• The absence or limitations of certain simulation and creation features

Not every criticism carries equal weight, and SCI has made changes to its game over time.

Nevertheless, marketing cannot permanently substitute for demonstrating improvements.

If SCI truly wants to compete with EA, it should use that competition as motivation to address its product's weaknesses.

And perhaps the most revealing thing about the Fight Night announcement is that many boxing videogame consumers are excited about the possibility of having another major option.

SCI should ask itself why that excitement exists.

It may not simply be nostalgia.

For some consumers, it may reflect dissatisfaction with what is currently available.

10. The Real Winner Should Be the Boxing Videogame Consumer

I have been advocating for a deeper, more realistic boxing videogame experience for decades.

My position has never been that EA should dominate the market or that SCI should disappear.

Quite the opposite.

I want EA, SCI, 2K, Visual Concepts, and capable independent studios to compete.

I want developers challenging one another to produce better boxing videogames.

I want genuine innovation rather than a situation where consumers must accept limited features because there are few alternatives.

And I do not believe every boxing videogame needs to appeal to the same audience.

A developer should be able to create a realistic simulation experience while offering optional hybrid or arcade settings for consumers who prefer a different approach.

Offline and online experiences can have distinct rules and priorities.

Career Mode does not need to be compromised for competitive online balance.

Realistic boxer behavior should not automatically be sacrificed because some consumers find it challenging to master.

And the knowledge of experienced boxers, trainers, boxing historians, technical analysts, and serious boxing enthusiasts should be treated as an important development resource.

A realistic boxing videogame can make a hardcore fan out of a casual.

I have maintained that position for years, and EA's return has not changed it.

11. SCI, Are You Really Ready to Step Into the Ring With EA?

Here is where I stand.

I understand why SCI responded to EA.

It wants to show confidence.

It wants its consumers to believe the company isn't intimidated.

It wants people discussing Undisputed alongside Fight Night.

But SCI needs to recognize that challenging EA brings additional expectations.

Once you publicly declare that you are ready to compete, consumers have every reason to compare your development decisions, gameplay mechanics, technological capabilities, content, presentation, and overall product quality.

And those comparisons may not always favor SCI.

EA possesses financial resources and organizational experience that SCI cannot easily duplicate.

But EA also has something to prove.

It must demonstrate that its return is more than a recognizable franchise name and an effective marketing campaign.

Neither company has earned the right to declare itself the superior developer of realistic boxing simulations.

That distinction must be earned through actual gameplay and comprehensive boxing systems.

Final Thoughts: Be Careful When You Poke the Bear

SCI has every right to compete with EA.

It has every right to promote its product, challenge a rival, and demonstrate confidence in its future.

But confidence should be supported by results.

For years, SCI has had an opportunity to establish Undisputed as a defining modern boxing videogame franchise.

Now EA is returning, and the competitive landscape could change dramatically.

SCI might discover that the company it publicly challenged has the resources to compete on a scale it has never faced before.

On the other hand, EA might discover that returning to the boxing videogame industry after 15 years is more difficult than simply reviving a familiar name.

Both companies have something to prove, but SCI has something EA currently does not: a modern boxing videogame already available for consumers to judge.

That means SCI's existing product is part of the comparison whether the company likes it or not.

So my message to SCI is simple:

You told EA, "We'll see you in the ring."

Well, make sure you come prepared to box, because marketing alone isn't going to save you when the bell rings.

And my message to EA?

Don't come back expecting boxing fans to accept another superficially realistic boxing videogame simply because it carries the Fight Night name.

Bring something new.

Bring something authentic.

Bring something innovative.

Bring the type of boxing simulation this sport deserves.

Because ultimately, I am not interested in which company talks the loudest.

I want to know which company is willing to build the better boxing videogame.

And until somebody proves otherwise, I will continue holding both companies accountable.

---

Poe Speaks...

The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist

Poe & The Community Speaks...

A Realistic Boxing Game Can Make a Hardcore Fan Out of a Casual.

#BringBackESBC #FightNight #Undisputed #SteelCityInteractive #EASports #BoxingVideogames #BoxingSimulation #PoeSpeaks

 

The Double Standard: Why Do UFC/MMA Gamers Demand Realism in Their Sport but Question It in Boxing Videogames?

There is a legitimate double standard worth challenging in the combat sports gaming community. Some UFC/MMA gamers want their own sport represented accurately, yet criticize boxing enthusiasts who demand the same level of realism, authenticity, and simulation in boxing videogames.

The contradiction becomes particularly noticeable when conversations turn to gameplay mechanics, movement, defensive systems, stamina, damage, boxing techniques, and what makes a videogame a true simulation.

But there is an important distinction: Everyone has the right to express an opinion about either sport's videogames. Having an opinion, however, does not automatically make someone qualified to determine how accurately a sport should be represented.

That standard should apply equally to boxing, MMA, and every other sports simulation.

1. Why does this double standard exist?

Several factors may explain the behavior you are describing.

First, the overlapping audience. Many UFC/MMA gamers also play boxing videogames. Because both sports involve striking, they may assume their knowledge transfers directly between them.

There is some overlap, but boxing and MMA are fundamentally different competitive disciplines.

MMA striking must account for takedowns, kicks, knees, elbows, clinch grappling, and submissions. Traditional boxing operates under a different ruleset, which produces distinct stances, defensive positioning, footwork, punch selection, and tactical decision-making.

Knowing how to use boxing combinations in a UFC videogame does not necessarily mean someone understands the technical requirements of a dedicated boxing simulation.

Second, gamers sometimes confuse personal enjoyment with accurate representation.

A player might say:

• "The movement is too slow."

• "The stamina system is too punishing."

• "Clinching ruins the action."

• "The defensive mechanics are too complicated."

• "The game would be more fun if punches were faster and easier to throw."

Those are legitimate gameplay preferences.

But they are not, by themselves, evidence that the boxing mechanics are incorrect.

A simulation should not automatically abandon an authentic mechanic simply because someone dislikes learning or using it.

Third, competitive gaming influences design expectations.

Some competitive players favor immediate responsiveness, predictable outcomes, simplified defensive systems, and mechanical consistency.

Those characteristics can be valuable for competitive balance. But realistic boxing also includes tactical uncertainty, stylistic mismatches, fatigue, imperfect reactions, clinching, and other factors that complicate competitive play.

The challenge is distinguishing what is being requested for competitive convenience from what is required for sporting authenticity.

2. The evidence that makes this contradiction worth discussing

EA's own UFC development commentary provides an interesting example.

In its discussion of EA Sports UFC 6, EA emphasized authentic athlete movement, distinctive styles, improved striking, and the importance of knowledgeable community feedback. The company explained that players wanted competitors to behave more like their real-world counterparts.

EA

+1

Those are remarkably similar to the demands made by serious boxing simulation enthusiasts.

Meanwhile, discussions within the Undisputed community demonstrate disagreement about realism and accessibility. Some players criticize the absence of authentic defensive movement, while others are willing to sacrifice certain simulation features for competitive enjoyment.

Reddit

+1

This does not establish that MMA gamers as a group are hypocritical. It does, however, illustrate that different communities sometimes apply competing standards to realism.

3. Would UFC/MMA gamers accept boxing enthusiasts removing their sport's mechanics?

Imagine a dedicated boxing gamer visiting a UFC videogame forum and making these demands:

• Remove submissions because they interrupt the striking.

• Reduce grappling because the ground game is boring.

• Eliminate takedown fatigue because it restricts aggression.

• Simplify clinch wrestling because it is too complicated.

• Make every competitor use similar movement and defensive animations.

• Remove specialized wrestling and Brazilian jiu-jitsu mechanics to make gameplay more accessible.

How many serious MMA enthusiasts would agree?

Some might, but many would reasonably argue that those mechanics are essential to representing mixed martial arts.

And they would be correct.

Now apply that exact principle to a boxing videogame.

Why should knowledgeable boxing enthusiasts have to defend the inclusion of clinching, inside boxing, realistic fatigue, defensive shells, ring generalship, boxer-specific footwork, feints, and tactical pacing?

These are not unnecessary complications. They are integral elements of boxing.

A boxing simulation without authentic boxing mechanics is no more complete than an MMA simulation without credible grappling.

4. The difference between having a voice and having authority

I would not argue that UFC/MMA gamers should be excluded from providing feedback on boxing videogames.

Their experience can identify real problems involving controller responsiveness, accessibility, interface design, matchmaking, animation transitions, and technical performance.

Similarly, a boxing enthusiast can identify poor striking mechanics, unrealistic stamina, or unnatural movement in a UFC videogame.

But evaluating the authenticity of complex boxing mechanics requires knowledge of boxing.

That distinction is important for developers.

Feedback category	Whose expertise should carry the most weight?
Boxing technique and authenticity	Experienced boxers, trainers, technical analysts, knowledgeable boxing researchers
MMA technique and authenticity	MMA athletes, coaches, grappling and striking specialists
Controls and accessibility	Players across skill levels, UX designers
Competitive balance	Competitive players and game systems designers
Simulation systems	Sporting specialists working with simulation engineers
Technical bugs and performance	All players, QA testers and developers

The appropriate influence should depend on the question being asked, not on which community is louder.

5. Why the simulation audience deserves its own experience

There is no requirement that every boxing videogame appeal equally to every type of player.

A simulation can provide accessibility without sacrificing its underlying sporting model.

For example, a realistic boxing game can offer beginner-friendly controls while still simulating stamina depletion, foot placement, defensive positioning, clinching, and stylistic individuality.

It can also provide separate simulation, hybrid, and arcade rulesets without forcing all three audiences into one compromised experience.

What developers should avoid is allowing preferences intended for competitive or arcade gameplay to automatically dictate the authenticity of the simulation itself.

6. The question I would put to both communities

If you believe an MMA videogame should respect the intricacies of mixed martial arts, why shouldn't a boxing videogame respect the intricacies of boxing?

And conversely, boxing enthusiasts should be willing to extend that same respect to MMA enthusiasts.

The answer cannot simply be that one group considers a mechanic entertaining and another considers it boring.

Entertainment is subjective. Sporting authenticity is something we can examine through technique, biomechanics, rules, and observable competition.

A videogame can be entertaining without being a simulation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

The problem arises when someone insists that an explicitly simulation-oriented game abandon its sporting foundation to accommodate their personal preference, while demanding technical authenticity in the game representing their own sport.

The standard should be reciprocal: You do not have to enjoy every realistic mechanic, but your dislike of that mechanic does not make it unrealistic or unnecessary.

And that is the strongest argument to bring to the boxing and MMA gaming communities. It challenges inconsistent expectations without dismissing anyone's right to participate in the conversation.

 

EA Sports & SCI: Will We Ever Get a Realistic/Sim Boxing Videogame ?

A Public Challenge to EA Sports, Steel City Interactive, and the Boxing Community

Some boxing fans have already made up their minds.

"EA Sports and Steel City Interactive will never make a true boxing simulation."

I understand why some fans feel that way. After decades of boxing videogames, countless discussions about realism, and repeated promises of authenticity, we're still debating fundamental aspects of boxing that should have been established long ago.

We've watched graphics improve, boxer likenesses become more recognizable, licensing agreements expand, and presentation evolve. Yet the actual representation of the Sweet Science continues to fall short of what many knowledgeable boxing fans expect.

Neither EA's Knockout Kings and Fight Night franchises nor SCI's Undisputed has delivered the comprehensive boxing simulation I've spent decades advocating.

However, I have a serious question for those who insist it will never happen.

How do you know it will never happen? And more importantly, why have we reached a point where so many boxing fans have accepted that possibility as inevitable?

There is an enormous difference between something being technologically impossible and a development company simply deciding that it isn't a priority.

That distinction deserves a serious conversation.

Are EA and SCI Making Boxing Simulations or Competitive Boxing Videogames?

This is the first question I want both companies to answer.

Are you developing a realistic simulation of professional boxing, or are you developing a competitive videogame that happens to feature professional boxers?

There is nothing inherently wrong with producing an accessible, competitive boxing videogame. There is an audience for that experience.

But accessibility, competitive balance, authenticity, and simulation are not interchangeable concepts.

A boxing simulation should attempt to reproduce the sport's technical, physical, psychological, tactical, and strategic characteristics.

That includes more than accurately scanning a boxer's face, recording a few signature movements, capturing professional punches, or purchasing the rights to championship belts.

Realism must be demonstrated through the gameplay systems and how those systems interact.

Consider what a comprehensive simulation could include:

• Authentic boxer-specific footwork, stances, postures, movement rhythms, and defensive styles.

• Individualized attributes, traits, tendencies, capabilities, mannerisms, and signature techniques.

• Intelligent CPU boxers capable of adapting strategies without abandoning their established boxing identities.

• Fully developed inside fighting, clinching, smothering, parrying, catching, slipping, rolling, and counterpunching.

• Realistic stamina, fatigue, cumulative damage, balance, weight transfer, and punch-impact physics.

• Meaningful differences between heavy-handed punchers, feather-fisted boxers, defensive specialists, pressure boxers, counterpunchers, and technically versatile boxers.

• Proper refereeing, judging, corner instructions, trainer influence, and medical stoppages.

• Extensive amateur boxing, career, championship, promotional, management, and boxing-universe systems.

• A comprehensive Creation Suite that allows players to develop and customize their own boxing ecosystem.

• Deep offline gameplay options, including CPU-versus-CPU simulation, spectator features, and customizable rules.

These are not simply graphical enhancements. They represent interconnected systems that could help a boxing videogame behave more like the actual sport.

Implementing them properly requires research, engineering, calibration, and extensive testing.

The question isn't whether every imaginable feature can be implemented immediately. It's whether realistic boxing is the foundation of the development philosophy.

What Is Actually Preventing a Realistic Boxing Simulation?

Modern videogame development offers capabilities that were unavailable during the earlier generations of Knockout Kings and Fight Night.

Developers can use advanced animation blending, procedural movement systems, motion matching, physics-based reactions, increasingly sophisticated AI, detailed behavioral modeling, and powerful development engines.

None of these technologies guarantees authenticity.

A sophisticated game engine cannot replace an understanding of boxing. Motion capture cannot independently determine whether a boxer is moving correctly. Artificial intelligence cannot compensate for poorly researched boxing behavior or inadequate gameplay architecture.

Developers still need experienced engineers, animators, systems designers, researchers, knowledgeable boxing specialists, and qualified testers.

However, it would be unreasonable to assume that the limitations of boxing videogames developed fifteen or twenty years ago automatically represent the limitations of modern development.

So I want EA and SCI to answer a straightforward question.

What is actually stopping you from producing a more comprehensive boxing simulation?

Is it the development budget?

Is it the required production time?

Is it the complexity of integrating numerous realistic systems?

Is it management's creative direction?

Is it the assumption that most consumers prefer simplified gameplay?

Or is it the decision to prioritize competitive online balance over the unpredictable realities of professional boxing?

There may be legitimate commercial and technical explanations for certain development decisions.

But those explanations should be distinguished from vague claims that deeper simulation simply isn't possible.

Why Should Offline Boxing Be Compromised for Online Competition?

This is one of my biggest disagreements with how boxing videogames are often designed.

Boxing is naturally competitive, but boxing is not naturally balanced.

Professional boxers are not physically or technically equal.

Some punch harder. Some recover faster. Some are more durable. Some have exceptional timing, reach, conditioning, defensive instincts, or ring intelligence.

Others have limitations that significantly affect their performances.

Those differences are essential to boxing.

A realistic simulation should represent them rather than artificially neutralizing them to make every matchup equally competitive.

For example, a boxer who is naturally heavy-handed should not automatically lose that advantage simply because competitive players believe his punching power is unfair.

Likewise, a highly skilled defensive boxer should not have his capabilities reduced merely because opponents struggle to land punches against him.

Competitive online gameplay may require separate balancing rules, restrictions, matchmaking systems, or standardized settings.

That's understandable.

But why should those decisions dictate the entire offline simulation experience?

I have consistently advocated for a simulation-focused foundation with optional Hybrid and Arcade gameplay experiences.

Offline simulation and competitive online play should be allowed to operate under different gameplay rules where necessary.

This approach would require careful engineering and maintenance, but it could accommodate different audiences without forcing everyone into the same interpretation of boxing.

The question for developers is whether they are willing to design that separation.

Who Is Actually Influencing the Development of These Games?

Another important issue is the selection of the people who influence gameplay authenticity.

Companies frequently promote their relationships with professional boxers, recognizable personalities, and industry consultants.

That sounds impressive in marketing materials.

But being a professional boxer does not automatically make someone knowledgeable about videogame development, simulation architecture, animation systems, or advanced gameplay mechanics.

Likewise, being an accomplished videogame developer does not automatically make someone knowledgeable about boxing.

Both areas of expertise matter.

A serious boxing simulation should benefit from collaboration involving professional boxers, experienced trainers, boxing historians, technical analysts, referees, judges, boxing researchers, records specialists, simulation designers, AI engineers, animators, and experienced boxing-game testers.

These individuals bring different forms of knowledge.

A professional boxer may explain how a particular movement feels and why it works. A trainer may explain technical positioning and strategic adjustments. A historian may identify stylistic differences across eras. An experienced simulation designer can translate these observations into interactive systems.

But there is another group whose knowledge deserves recognition.

The dedicated boxing fans who have spent decades studying the sport, analyzing footage, identifying technical inaccuracies, and researching what videogame technology can accomplish.

Their knowledge should not be automatically dismissed as nitpicking simply because their expectations extend beyond what a company currently provides.

Casual gamers and competitive players also have valuable feedback to offer, particularly about accessibility, presentation, user experience, and competitive formats.

However, expertise should be relevant to the subject being evaluated.

A person who understands competitive gaming does not necessarily understand whether a boxer is technically authentic.

If the question concerns boxing realism, shouldn't demonstrated boxing knowledge carry greater weight?

Have Boxing Fans Started Accepting Less?

This brings me back to the fans who insist that EA or SCI will never deliver a realistic simulation.

Their skepticism is understandable.

Previous boxing videogames have repeatedly disappointed players who wanted deeper mechanics, extensive offline features, and stronger representations of individual boxers.

But there is a danger in treating those disappointments as proof that meaningful progress is impossible.

When expectations fall low enough, features that should be standard can begin receiving extraordinary praise.

A more attractive boxer model becomes a major achievement.

A familiar championship belt becomes a selling point.

A handful of improved animations becomes evidence of revolutionary realism.

Meanwhile, essential mechanics and deeper boxing systems may remain incomplete or absent.

None of those presentation improvements is inherently unimportant.

But visual authenticity and licensing should complement gameplay authenticity, not substitute for it.

This is especially relevant when companies use terms such as realistic, authentic, and simulation in their promotional messaging.

Those descriptions should invite scrutiny.

What makes the boxing realistic?

What systems reproduce the sport's actual mechanics?

How are boxers differentiated beyond numerical ratings?

How does the AI reproduce individual boxing intelligence?

How does the game handle fatigue, damage, defensive responsibility, distance management, and strategic adjustments?

What evidence supports the company's claims?

These are reasonable questions from paying consumers.

And asking them should not be considered an attack on developers or an attempt to ruin anyone else's enjoyment.

Commercial Viability Is Not the Same as Technical Feasibility

There are three separate questions that should never be confused.

1. Can a comprehensive boxing simulation be developed?

Many of its individual systems are technically feasible, but delivering them together at a high standard would require substantial resources, careful architecture, integration, and testing.

2. Would developing one be commercially worthwhile?

That depends on production costs, market size, pricing, audience demand, retention, long-term sales, and the company's business strategy.

3. Do EA Sports and SCI actually want to prioritize one?

That depends on decisions made by their leadership, producers, creative directors, and development teams.

The answers are not necessarily the same.

A company can possess the technical capability to pursue a feature and still choose not to fund it.

A concept can be technically feasible while being commercially difficult.

And a commercially viable idea can be rejected because it conflicts with the creative direction of a particular development team.

A company's refusal to prioritize a design feature does not automatically establish that the feature is impossible.

By the same reasoning, the availability of modern technology does not automatically prove that every ambitious simulation concept can be delivered within a realistic production budget.

Both distinctions matter.

Five Direct Questions for EA Sports and Steel City Interactive

I would genuinely like both companies to address the following questions publicly.

1. What does a realistic boxing simulation mean to your development team?

Not as a marketing phrase, but as a measurable gameplay philosophy.

2. Who is your primary audience?

Are you prioritizing casual players, competitive online gamers, dedicated boxing fans, simulation enthusiasts, or attempting to accommodate all of them?

If you're attempting to satisfy everyone, how will you prevent one audience's preferences from unnecessarily compromising another's?

3. Why should online competitive balancing influence offline boxing authenticity?

Would you consider separating competitive gameplay rules from a more comprehensive simulation?

4. What are the actual obstacles to implementing deeper boxing systems?

Which limitations are technical, financial, architectural, or production-related, and which represent deliberate creative decisions?

5. How will you demonstrate that realism is being prioritized?

Will players see evidence of authentic boxer behavior, intelligent AI, meaningful boxer individuality, comprehensive mechanics, and deeper boxing modes rather than relying primarily on graphics, licensing, and promotional claims?

These questions are not demands for confidential business information or unrealistic guarantees.

They are an invitation to explain the design philosophy behind products marketed to boxing fans.

My Question to the Boxing Community

To those who say EA Sports and SCI will never produce a realistic boxing simulation:

Are you making that prediction because you understand the technological and financial obstacles, or because decades of disappointing boxing videogames have convinced you to stop expecting more?

Those are two very different positions.

I am not suggesting that either company will suddenly deliver everything simulation fans want.

I am not guaranteeing that EA's next Fight Night or SCI's next Undisputed will meet those expectations.

And I am certainly not suggesting that the development process is easy.

What I am challenging is the assumption that past shortcomings establish permanent technological boundaries.

I also reject the idea that boxing fans must choose between enjoying a game and critically evaluating its authenticity.

You can appreciate what a developer accomplished while recognizing what was omitted, oversimplified, or poorly implemented.

You can support the existence of more boxing videogames while demanding substantially better boxing simulations.

And you can acknowledge development constraints without automatically accepting every creative decision a company makes.

Final Thoughts: Stop Confusing What Companies Have Done With What Can Be Done

I want EA Sports and Steel City Interactive to succeed.

More boxing videogames mean more opportunities for competition, innovation, and different approaches to representing the sport.

But I don't want either company to succeed merely because boxing fans have become accustomed to limited choices.

I want them to succeed because they deliver something worthy of the sport they represent.

A truly ambitious boxing simulation should aspire to reproduce boxing's individuality, unpredictability, complexity, strategy, history, and competitive ecosystem.

It should give knowledgeable fans reasons to respect its authenticity and casual gamers opportunities to discover why boxing is called the Sweet Science.

EA Sports and SCI, the question is no longer simply whether you can make another boxing videogame.

The question is whether you're willing to make a genuine boxing simulation, and if not, why not?

And to the fans who believe that will never happen:

Don't mistake decades of unmet expectations for proof that progress is impossible.

A realistic boxing simulation may be difficult to develop. It may be expensive. It may require a different design philosophy from those we've previously experienced.

But until its practical limitations have been properly examined, dismissing the entire concept as impossible is premature.

A Realistic Boxing Game Can Make a Hardcore Fan Out of a Casual.

Poe Speaks… #BringBackESBC

 

Undisputed vs. EA Fight Night: What Did They Get Right, and What Did They Fail to Deliver?

First, we need to establish something: Neither Steel City Interactive's Undisputed nor EA's Knockout Kings and Fight Night franchises delivered a comprehensive, realistic or authentic boxing game.

All three offered elements of boxing. All three had strengths. All three had limitations. But none fully recreated the technical, physical, psychological, tactical, and organizational complexity of the sport.

That does not mean we should ignore what they accomplished.

SCI deserves credit where it introduced features that EA never provided. EA deserves credit for features its older boxing games offered that Undisputed did not preserve or improve.

1. What Undisputed did that EA's boxing franchises didn't

Licensed championship organizations

SCI included the WBC, WBO, and IBF championships, alongside its fictional SCI title. This provided a more recognizable championship structure than EA's predominantly fictional career belts. However, the WBA was absent from Undisputed's main career championship system.

Selectable professional support team

Undisputed allowed players to assemble a manager, coach, and cutman in Career Mode. EA had training and career progression mechanics, but not the same explicit three-role team management structure.

Career contract negotiations

SCI introduced a system for selecting opponents, negotiating purses and making career decisions around money and fame. This offered a more explicit business-management component than EA's traditional career progression. It was still far from a complete boxing business simulation.

Modern women's professional boxing roster

Undisputed represented multiple contemporary women's boxing stars and their professional careers. However, women's boxing was not a first for the genre or for EA, since Knockout Kings 2001 included women.

One important distinction: Undisputed also implemented boxer-specific punch and combination preferences for selected licensed boxers. That deserves recognition, but it does not establish that its complete boxer identity system surpassed every previous EA title.

2. Additional areas where Undisputed expanded the experience

These are areas where SCI introduced a more explicit feature or different implementation, although they should not all be called industry firsts.

• Loose Movement and Flat-Footed Movement: Separate movement states, including an automatic flat-footed state linked to stamina depletion. The implementation was not necessarily an accurate representation of every boxer's movement.

• Career roster customization: An April 2025 update allowed players to select which created and licensed boxers populated their career roster.

• Licensed boxing equipment: Brands such as Rival, Everlast, Cleto Reyes, Empire Pro Tape and Adams Footwear contributed to a recognizable boxing environment.

• CompuBox presentation: SCI incorporated licensed CompuBox branding and statistical presentation.

• Boxer physical customization: Detailed body and facial adjustments, including specific muscle definition controls.

These features were documented by SCI.

3. What was missing from both franchises?

This is where the conversation becomes much more important. The following table evaluates system depth across the franchises, not whether a feature appeared in absolutely every installment.

Boxing system	EA Knockout Kings / Fight Night	SCI Undisputed
Complete professional boxing ecosystem	Largely missing	Largely missing
Four major sanctioning organizations operating realistically	Missing	Three major belts, incomplete
Organic, independent boxer careers and records	Limited career simulation	Limited career simulation
Full amateur boxing ecosystem	Missing	Introductory tournament only
Authentic individual boxer DNA, tendencies and behavior	Partial	Partial
Advanced inside fighting and smothering	Limited	Incomplete
Clinching and referee interaction	Present in some EA games, limited in depth	Clinching removed
Independent referee personalities and rule enforcement	Incomplete	Incomplete, no persistent in-ring referee
Advanced judging personalities and scoring variation	Incomplete	Incomplete
Realistic conditioning, injuries and long-term wear	Simplified	Simplified
Comprehensive boxing business and promotional management	Missing	Limited
Deep boxer, gym, organization and personnel creation	Limited	Limited
Living boxing universe with autonomous promotions and organizations	Missing	Missing
Full CPU-vs-CPU broadcast and spectator ecosystem	Inconsistent or limited	Missing or inadequate

Important: EA did implement clinching, referees, corner interactions, training, story modes and other systems in certain releases. These should not be described as universally absent. In contrast, SCI explicitly confirmed the removal of clinching from Undisputed's launch version.

4. What EA did that Undisputed failed to preserve or surpass

The comparison must go both ways.

EA's advantages included:

1. Working clinch mechanics in several Fight Night installments, even if simplified.

2. Visible, functioning referees in earlier boxing games rather than relying primarily on cinematic appearances.

3. More substantial narrative presentation through Fight Night Champion's story mode.

4. Corner and training gameplay that allowed players to participate directly in certain aspects of boxer preparation and recovery.

5. Online Gyms in Fight Night Champion, giving players a structured boxing community feature.

6. Established defensive, counterpunching and punching-control mechanics that were sometimes more cohesive than their newer alternatives.

EA officially documented Fight Night Champion's narrative mode, muscle-group stamina mechanics and Online Gyms.

5. The biggest shared failure: Neither created a genuinely living boxing world

A realistic boxing simulation should be more than a player climbing a ranking ladder.

Imagine a world in which 500 or more boxers independently build records, suffer injuries, change trainers, move between weight divisions, negotiate fights, develop rivalries, decline physically, retire or make comebacks.

Imagine sanctioning organizations maintaining separate rankings, mandating defenses, stripping titles, ordering eliminators and disagreeing over which boxers deserve title opportunities.

Imagine the player's decisions being only one part of a larger boxing ecosystem that continues functioning without them.

That is the distinction between a conventional boxing career mode and a living boxing universe simulation.

Neither franchise fully delivered that experience.

6. Questions the boxing community should answer

I would frame your discussion this way:

• What did SCI's Undisputed genuinely improve over every EA boxing game?

• What features did Knockout Kings or Fight Night already possess that SCI failed to include?

• Did Undisputed's licensed championship belts make its Career Mode more authentic, or did they primarily improve presentation?

• Why has neither company fully simulated professional boxing's organizations, rankings, business relationships and governing rules?

• Why are advanced boxing fundamentals still treated as optional when developers market authenticity and realism?

My conclusion

SCI achieved something meaningful with the WBC, WBO and IBF licensing. This gave Undisputed a credible advantage in championship representation, but having authentic belts is not the same as simulating how those championships operate.

EA provided features that Undisputed omitted, while SCI introduced career-management and licensing elements that EA never fully explored.

Neither delivered the complete sport.

The question isn't simply which boxing game did more. It's why, after decades of boxing videogames, we're still debating basic features that should have been standard years ago.

And that is the discussion I would bring to Poe & The Community Speaks….