“Authenticity” As Cover: How the Product Direction Drifted From Sim to Hybrid

“Authenticity” As Cover: From Sim Promise to Hybrid Reality-What We Can Prove, What We Can’t, and What to Demand

The core claim (plain language)

It isn’t a conspiracy to say the current Undisputed direction plays more like a hybrid than the sim that was marketed. You can trace a public record that (1) set sim-first expectations, (2) shipped something materially different, and (3) has produced mixed reception and persistent complaints. That’s product stewardship, not tinfoil-hat talk.

What we can know (public, verifiable)

• The sim promise was explicit and widely marketed. The ESBC-era “Official Alpha Gameplay Features (First Look)” racked up major visibility and set the tone for a simulation-first boxing game. (YouTube)

• The launch timeline and positioning are clear. PLAION/Deep Silver announced full launch for October 11, 2024 (with Deluxe early access on Oct 8), describing Undisputed as “the most authentic boxing experience.” (PLAION Press Server)

• Early Access → 1.0 is documented. Early Access began Jan 31, 2023; 1.0 hit PC/PS5/XSX on Oct 11, 2024. (PLAION Press Server, Play Undisputed)

• Sales were strong; reception is mixed. Multiple outlets reported 1M+ units sold shortly after launch, while Steam shows Mixed user reviews and OpenCritic aggregates a “Fair” ~73 from critics. Both can be true at once. (Game Developer, GamingBolt, Steam Store, OpenCritic)

• “Authenticity” is a titled product function, not ceremonial. In press and interviews around launch, Steel City Interactive put the Director of Product & Authenticity on camera alongside the CEO to explain vision and features—direct product ownership signaling. (Insider Gaming, gamereactor.dk)

What we can’t know (and shouldn’t pretend to)

Fans sometimes want to pin everything on “the owner.” Truth is: none of us has access to the internal disagreements, budget shocks, or tech pivots. Speculating about “nefarious” back-room moves isn’t necessary. The shipped design is the only court that matters.

The vision changed—here’s the evidence you can point to

• Marketing vs. Mechanics: The ESBC feature reveal and “authentic” positioning created a sim yardstick. The 1.0 game contains design allowances (movement bursts, escape-hatch cancels, softer stamina persistence) that read hybrid. You don’t need leaks to see that; you can play it and compare the promises. (YouTube, PLAION Press Server)

• Community & critic signals: Mixed Steam sentiment + “Fair” critic consensus indicate a disconnect between expectations and delivery (even as some reviewers praise elements). (Steam Store, OpenCritic)

• Feature drift called out during the cycle: Community videos and discussion threads catalog features that looked stronger in earlier builds than later (e.g., certain footwork or punch interaction nuances), reinforcing the perception of a pivot. (YouTube)

Owner vs. Product: how accountability really works

Blaming a single person at the top is emotionally tidy but rarely diagnostic. What’s actionable is the accountability map:

• Product Leadership (incl. “Authenticity”) sets the pillars, acceptance criteria, and tradeoffs (sim inertia vs. online responsiveness; clinch/ref depth vs. pace; body work persistence vs. “fun” damage).

• CEO/Studio approves resources and greenlights roadmaps.

• Publishing/Marketing amplifies the chosen pillars to the world.
  Interviews featuring CEO Ash Habib and the Director of Product & Authenticity together make it plain that this direction is formally owned and communicated—not incidental. (Insider Gaming)

Things to think about (instead of swallowing the well-packaged excuses)

Use these to frame your critiques and demands without drifting into speculation:

1. Hold them to their own words. Quote the “most authentic boxing experience” promise and ask for specific, testable commitments tied to that claim. (PLAION Press Server, presse.plaion.com)

2. Measure, don’t vibe-check. Ask for telemetry-grade KPIs: slip-to-counter windows (ms), stride inertia ranges, body-work carryover effects per round, clinch entry frequency and outcomes, judge rationale weights. If “authenticity” is real, numbers will back it.

3. Compare apples to apples. Evaluate like-for-like sequences from the ESBC reveal (ring cutting, rope interactions, body investment arcs) against current 1.0 behavior. Document the gaps. (YouTube)

4. Reception isn’t a smear—use it as a barometer. “Mixed” on Steam and mid-70s on OpenCritic aren’t hit pieces; they’re signals to prioritize core feel, netcode predictability, and scoring transparency. (Steam Store, OpenCritic)

5. Strong sales don’t erase design drift. Celebrate the 1M milestone and insist that success funds the sim roadmap fans were sold. (Game Developer)

A concrete authenticity checklist (publishable by SCI this month)

Make these public and date-stamped so fans can verify in-game—no “trust us” required.

1) Footwork & Space

• Distinct style gaits (pressure, slickster, outboxer) with measured stride length, acceleration curves, and turn inertia.

• Corner/rope logic: trap angles, “dead-space” slow zones, rope-a-dope stamina exchange modeled.

2) Defense Beyond Blocking

• Slip/roll arcs with vulnerability windows only inside the arc; counter multipliers bound to timing, not spammy cancels.

• Guard degradation by angle/shot type; parries with real risk.

3) Body Work & Fatigue Economy

• Persistent body damage across rounds affecting late-round speed and output.

• Recovery curves that punish unsustainable tempos and reward investment boxing.

4) Clinch & Referee

• Organic clinch entries (fatigue, distance, posture) with consequences; referee cadence that changes pacing and penalizes fouls appropriately.

5) Scoring Transparency

• Round summaries showing judge emphasis (clean punching, defense, effective aggression, ring generalship) with exposed weights.

Hiring & resourcing (how “authenticity” gets real)

If the pillars are sim-first, staff (and empower) these seats:

• Combat Systems Designer (boxing SME)

• Footwork/Movement Engineer (physics)

• AI Ringcraft Designer (tendencies, game plans)

• Ref/Rules Designer

• Telemetry Analyst (sim KPIs)
  Roadmaps without owners are wishes; owners without authority are theater.

A pragmatic reset plan

• Publish 1-pager pillars: six non-negotiables for the sim ruleset.

• 90-day patch slate: footwork inertia pass; clinch/ref interactions; stamina & body carryover; scoring UI explainer.

• Public KPIs: share target ranges and deltas patch-to-patch.

• External council: boxers/trainers/historians reviewing pillar regressions; publish minutes.

• Dual rulesets: keep a Simulation preset for offline + unranked online, alongside a faster competitive preset, to stop the endless “fun vs. sim” see-saw.

Bottom line

Yes—the vision changed. You don’t need secret memos to see it; the record of marketing, interviews, launch claims, sales, and mixed reception is enough. Stop letting “it’s hard,” “small team,” or “that was just alpha” erase the obligation to either (a) deliver the sim you sold, or (b) publicly re-scope the promise. The solution isn’t blaming ghosts behind closed doors; it’s forcing clear pillars, measurable tests, and accountable staffing into the light—then holding Undisputed to them on the canvas. (YouTube, PLAION Press Server, Game Developer, Steam Store, OpenCritic)