SCI’s “Bad Choices” – What They Really Mean

1. Development Direction Missteps

When Steel City Interactive (SCI) admit they’ve made “bad choices,” part of that refers to the technical and management side:

Overpromising early: Their ESBC trailers promised referees, clinching, true damage modeling, realistic AI tendencies, and partnerships with CompuBox/BoxRec used authentically.
Under-delivering: Five years later, many of those systems are still missing or stripped out. Fans see this as wasted time and mismanagement.
Engine issues as excuses: SCI often blames Unity and “bad coding practices” for instability and desync. But critics argue that’s scapegoating the engine rather than acknowledging poor design pipelines.
[YouTube video by KingJuice] Ash Habib, the owner of Undisputed, admitted that the developers "messed up" (0:27) in the early days by focusing too much on realistic gameplay without considering how players might "cheese the game" or exploit mechanics. This led to issues that need to be rebalanced (8:08-8:32).

A bigger part of “bad choices” is the pivot in how the game plays:

Arcade vs. Sim tug-of-war: To appeal to casual players, SCI gave all boxers universal loose footwork, considered removing ratings in favor of a tier system, and emphasized “balance” over authenticity. Hardcore fans view this as betraying the original sim vision.
Neglecting offline play: Instead of building robust offline modes, SCI leaned on online events and creator leagues. Offline fans—who are often the most dedicated—felt alienated.
Casual satisfaction over boxing reality: They argue that Rocky Marciano “dancing like Ali” is necessary for gameplay balance, even if it breaks realism. This undermines immersion for real boxing fans.

“Bad choices” also applies to how SCI communicated with their community:

Mixed and defensive messaging: Statements like “each fighter must be manually adjusted if we add an animation” came off as excuses, not explanations.
Dismissive tone toward sim fans: Ash Habib referred to “a small group” of hardcore fans and claimed they “can’t develop out of fear” of them. This minimizes the core audience who carried ESBC’s hype early on.
Over-reliance on content creators: SCI leaned on influencers to deliver talking points and deflect criticism, which backfired as fans noticed the spin.

The deeper layer is that SCI may be saying “bad choices” because:

They originally branded the game as a sim: Early marketing leaned on the words “realistic” and “authentic.” That attracted hardcore boxing fans.
Now they’re backtracking: With systems stripped, and more arcade design creeping in, admitting “we made bad choices” is safer PR than saying “we misled you.”
Business pressures matter: Investors and publishers often fear the word “simulation,” seeing it as niche. By reframing their vision, SCI can make the product more marketable to casual players—even if it alienates boxing purists.

Hardcore fans feel bait-and-switched: they bought in because of the sim promises.
Casual players may move on after the hype, but boxing purists will be stuck with a product that never delivered the authenticity they asked for.
“Bad choices” becomes less about coding errors and more about a philosophical betrayal of the original mission.

When SCI say they’ve made “bad choices,” it’s not just about technical missteps. It’s shorthand for:

“We shouldn’t have promised a true boxing simulation, because we’ve pivoted to something else—and now fans are holding us accountable.”