THE GREAT MISALLOCATION:

How SCI’s Spending, Priorities, and Partnerships Are Sabotaging Their Own Boxing Game

For years, boxing gamers hoped that Steel City Interactive would deliver the rebirth the genre desperately needed. With promises of authenticity, individuality, simulation depth, and a renewed focus on the science of boxing, SCI positioned itself as the studio that would finally bring the sport back to life in the gaming industry.

That promise, however, has steadily collapsed under the weight of misaligned priorities, questionable spending, and a growing obsession with marketing over mastery. The studio is now caught in a cycle familiar to many failed gaming projects: crafting visibility instead of craftsmanship.

What began as a bold attempt to build the most realistic boxing simulation in decades has devolved into a troubling pattern of promotional partnerships, influencer-driven optics, and incomplete execution, leaving a fractured community and a game that remains fundamentally unfinished.

I. The Shift From Authenticity to Optics

Early in development, SCI spoke passionately about simulation realism: individual tendencies, unique boxer styles, inside fighting, clinching, adaptive AI, advanced footwork, a living boxing ecosystem, and systems that would make every boxer feel genuinely distinct.

Today, the reality is starkly different.

Most of those promised systems remain:

missing,
partially implemented,
or replaced by simplified, arcade-leaning shortcuts.

Movement remains unnatural.
Animations have regressed.
AI lacks depth.
Footwork is incomplete.
Inside fighting barely exists.
Clinching never arrived.
Signature tendencies are absent.
Weight detection is primitive.
Defensive mechanics are insufficient.

And yet, rather than aggressively attacking these technical failures, SCI’s public-facing focus has shifted toward influencer partnerships, branded content, promotional events, and media collaborations.

The optics have grown. The game has not.

II. The Marketing Surge: Spending on Everything Except What Matters

SCI’s recent partnerships with social media boxing outlets, influencer boxing brands, and small promotional platforms reveal a studio attempting to amplify visibility while the gameplay foundation remains unstable.

These partnerships—almost certainly incentivized financially or through visibility trades—provide the illusion of momentum without fixing the core issues players experience every time they touch a controller.

The investment pattern is unmistakable:

Money Is Flowing Into:

influencer partnerships
sponsored tournaments
brand collaborations
visual rebranding
promotional trailers
social media campaigns
merch tie-ins
publicity boosts

**Money Is Not Flowing Into:**

AI engineering
animation cleanup
locomotion overhauls
physics tuning
hit detection systems
defensive mechanics
footwork architecture
clinch and inside-fighting systems
signature style frameworks
long-term gameplay identity

Marketing is receiving the budget that development desperately needs.

This creates a profound disconnect: the studio appears outwardly active, but internally, the game still suffers from early-access instability.

III. The EA Comparison, and Why It Fails

Some comparisons have framed SCI as becoming “the new EA.”
But the comparison doesn’t hold.

EA released Fight Night Champion hybrid, cinematic, flawed game, yet undeniably complete. Its shortcomings were design choices, not structural failures. EA misallocated creative direction, but they delivered a finished product.

SCI’s problem is more fundamental.
The game is still incomplete at a structural level.

The issue isn’t aesthetics or content pipelines—
It’s missing systems, broken mechanics, and unfulfilled promises.

SCI isn’t repeating EA.
SCI is repeating the pattern of studios that sprint toward marketing because development is falling behind.

IV. Why Companies Continue Partnering With SCI Despite the Game’s Condition

The continued influx of partnerships is perplexing to many players, but easily explained within the industry:

1. Partnerships Are Purchased or Incentivized

Most small media brands, social boxing pages, and influencer outlets accept deals when offered compensation, access, or visibility. These partnerships reflect business needs, not belief in the game's quality.

2. Many Partners Don’t Understand the Game’s Technical State

Boxing media outlets often do not play games, analyze mechanics, or follow community backlash. They simply see a studio with licensed boxers and impressive trailers.

3. Visibility Benefits Both Sides

SCI gains the illusion of momentum.
Partners gain content and engagement.

4. Some Partners Bet on Future Success

Even if the game is weak now, early association offers potential long-term value if it ever stabilizes.

In every scenario, the motivation is transactional, not a validation of the game’s quality or direction.

V. The Community’s Disillusionment

What makes the current situation especially painful is that the community initially championed SCI with remarkable loyalty. Many players defended Undisputed in early access, gave feedback, championed the studio’s goals, and believed in the long-term vision.

That loyalty has been eroded by:

stagnation in gameplay improvement
regression in animations
AI that fails to represent real boxing
missing promised systems
imbalance between marketing and development
vague communication
and a reliance on influencer optics instead of technical transparency

Fans didn’t turn on SCI because they wanted to.
They turned because the studio drifted away from the identity it originally embraced.

VI. The Consequences of Prioritizing Partnerships Over Progress

When a studio invests heavily in marketing while leaving core systems unfinished, several predictable outcomes follow:

Gameplay suffers, and players lose trust.
The studio appears disconnected from its own community.
Influencer-driven messaging replaces honest communication.
The game’s long-term potential is sacrificed for short-term visibility.
The fanbase fragments and declines.
The genre’s reputation suffers.

This is particularly damaging in boxing, a genre with no annual safety net. A failed boxing game isn’t just a failed game; it reinforces industry beliefs that boxing isn’t viable.

One studio’s failure becomes the entire genre’s setback.

VII. The Spending Crisis: A Studio Burning Money in the Wrong Direction

At its core, the criticism facing SCI is not that it lacks funding, but that it lacks allocation discipline.

Money is being spent.
It’s simply being spent on the wrong things.

A healthy development cycle spends first on:

physics
movement
collision
AI
animation
systems
realism
gameplay identity

SCI is spending first on:

partnerships
promotions
influencers
campaigns
branding
optics

The result is a game that feels frozen in early access while the company behaves like it’s preparing for a global launch.

VIII. The Path Back: Realignment or Regression

There is still a path forward, but only if SCI redistributes its energy and finances toward development, not promotion.

A recovery requires:

1. Transparent, technical roadmaps

-not cinematic updates.

2. Hiring specialized technical staff

-not increasing marketing presence.

3. Completing core systems

-before expanding partnerships.

4. Prioritizing stability over visibility

5. Rebuilding trust through action, not branding

A boxing game cannot be saved by slogans, influencers, or promotional events.
Only the gameplay can save it.

IX. Conclusion: A Studio at a Crossroads

Steel City Interactive stands in a fragile, defining moment. The studio still has the opportunity to redeem its promise and deliver the authentic boxing experience fans hoped for. But its current spending patterns and partnership-driven strategy reflect a studio drifting away from its core mission.

Unless the financial and creative priorities change rapidly and decisively, Undisputed risks becoming another cautionary tale of a studio that chased exposure instead of excellence.

The message from the community is clear, even if unspoken:

Stop investing in how the game looks to the outside world.
Start investing in how the game plays to the people who bought it.

The future of the game, and the genre, depends on that shift.

Poe’s Game Intel

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

“The Cost of Misplaced Priorities: How SCI Is Funding Everything Except the Game It Promised”