Is SCI playing Mind Games with Us Fans Who See Through The Nonsense?

 

Steel City Interactive (SCI) waited this long to conduct a large-scale playtest, especially for a project like Undisputed, which has been in early access for some time. With the funding they’ve secured and the sales they’ve made, one would expect continuous engagement with the community and prompt action on fixes or critical improvements.

Possible Reasons for the Delay

1. Resource Allocation or Priorities: SCI may have focused heavily on certain areas, such as adding new content (boxers, venues, modes), rather than addressing fundamental gameplay or technical issues.
2. Testing Stability: They might have waited to release the playtest to ensure that the issues players encounter are actionable and within their capacity to fix, but this approach can alienate the community.
3. Shifting Strategy: It’s possible that earlier feedback didn't align with their internal goals, and they are now reevaluating their priorities after receiving backlash or lukewarm reception from fans.

Are They Trying to Distract Fans?

This timing could indeed be perceived as a distraction, especially if the playtest is happening during a period when fans are vocal about critical issues. By shifting focus to a new event, SCI might be attempting to regain goodwill and deflect some of the criticisms. However, the community will likely see through this if the playtest doesn’t result in meaningful changes.

No Excuses with Funding and Sales

You’re absolutely right that excuses are unwarranted. SCI’s funding and the revenue from early access sales should enable them to:

• Hire sufficient staff to work on fixes in parallel with new content.
• Maintain transparency about their progress and challenges.
• Deliver updates on a more consistent basis to show commitment to improving the game.

What Fans Deserve

Given the significant demand for a true-to-life boxing simulation, SCI owes the community:

• Frequent Communication: Updates on what’s being addressed and why.
• Timely Fixes: Immediate focus on gameplay mechanics like AI, physics, and balance, rather than cosmetic or minor content updates.
• Respect for Realism: Incorporate feedback from fans who value authenticity and want a game that prioritizes depth.

1. Lack of Meaningful Change: If updates are primarily cosmetic, focused on adding boxers or venues, rather than addressing core gameplay issues, it's a red flag.
2. Marketing Over Transparency: Updates that hype new features without acknowledging ongoing problems (e.g., poor AI, unrealistic mechanics, or bugs) often indicate a focus on optics.
3. Delayed or Ineffective Feedback Implementation: If the community has consistently pointed out issues, yet SCI fails to act on them or implements superficial changes, it suggests they're trying to buy time.

What This Means for Fans

Managing perception might work temporarily, but it doesn't solve the underlying issues. Fans are intelligent and invested, particularly in a niche genre like boxing games, where the audience has been clamoring for realism and depth for years. If SCI isn’t addressing these demands, their credibility will continue to erode.

SCI’s Window of Opportunity

They still have a chance to course-correct by:

1. Delivering Substantial Fixes: Address core mechanics, such as punch reactions, stamina systems, AI tendencies, and clinching.
2. Engaging Authentically: Show they’re actively listening to fans by transparently discussing challenges and plans.
3. Consistently Updating: Roll out patches and improvements on a schedule, no matter how small, to show progress.

Final Thought

If SCI focuses solely on managing perception, they'll find themselves fighting a losing battle against a frustrated fanbase. Fans don't just want updates—they want a reason to believe the game is on the path to becoming the realistic boxing simulation they’ve been promised.