The Excuses Are Gone: Why Steel City Interactive Cannot Blame “First Game,” “Small Team,” or “Balance Philosophy” While Calling Undisputed Authentic

Five years into Undisputed’s development, Steel City Interactive continues to lean on three major public defenses:

1. “This is our first boxing game.”

2. “We are a small team.”

3. “We are trying to keep the game balanced.”

None of these defenses holds up under real industry analysis, historical comparison, or their own marketing claims.
Worse, each one directly contradicts the word they use most often to sell the game: authentic.

The result is a product caught between two identities:
half simulation, half arcade, and fully afraid of the truths of boxing.

---

1. The “first boxing game” excuse collapses in 2025

Earlier generations of developers were working with primitive tools.
Studios building Knockout Kings or early Fight Night games did not have:

• Unreal Engine

• Motion-matching

• Modern AI frameworks

• Massive online reference footage

• Marketplace animation systems

• 30 years of genre history to study

SCI entered the genre with every advantage those studios lacked.

They were not pioneers.
They were successors.

When you start with modern technology, a global internet, and complete access to decades of design precedent, “first game” is not a valid defense. You have the blueprint.

Yet Undisputed still lacks basic boxing fundamentals that were solved long ago:

• grounded footwork

• realistic stamina

• stylistic identities

• punch variety

• meaningful ratings

• defensive depth

• tendencies

• referee logic

• clinching

• realistic pacing

• proper movement

These are not “complex sequel features.”
They are core pillars that belong in game one.

---

2. “Small team” does not excuse the missing fundamentals

The industry is full of small teams that delivered deeper simulation systems and more cohesive gameplay:

• Stardew Valley

• Hollow Knight

• RimWorld

• Escape From Tarkov (early builds)

• Project Zomboid

• Ready or Not

• Undertale

These games include AI layers, progression, physics, animation pipelines, and scripted systems far more advanced than Undisputed.

Team size is not the issue.
Direction is.
Leadership is.
Prioritization is.

If a team of two or three can build systems-heavy masterpieces, a team with five years of development time should be able to implement the basics of boxing.

---

3. SCI disproves its own “small team” argument through its spending priorities

If a studio truly lacked resources, they would not:

• license dozens of fighters

• sign Jake Paul

• partner with promoters

• expand marketing campaigns

• grow influencer relationships

• create merch

• attend global events

• sign legends across multiple divisions

Those actions require:

• money

• manpower

• coordination

• legal support

• marketing teams

• production bandwidth

You cannot claim the team is too small to implement tendencies, footwork logic, or a referee, while simultaneously building an international licensing and marketing operation.

This is not a team-size problem.
It is a priority problem.

They scaled marketing, not gameplay.
They expanded licenses, not systems.
They focused on visibility, not authenticity.

A small team can build a masterpiece.
A poorly-directed team cannot.

---

4. Ash Habib’s constant use of the word “balance” reveals the real design philosophy

Whenever Ash appears in developer videos, interviews, or Q&A sessions, he leans on the same phrase:

“We need to keep things balanced.”

But SCI’s definition of “balance” is not the boxing definition.

Real boxing balance means:

• composure

• weight distribution

• stance control

• foot placement

SCI uses “balance” to mean:

• flattening style differences

• smoothing out strengths

• preventing real matchups

• removing natural advantages

The most revealing moment was when Ash said he did not want flat-footed punchers to be “unfair,” so he gave them loose foot movement, even if that contradicts how they actually fight.

This is the opposite of authenticity.

You cannot advertise “realistic styles” while giving boxers mobility they do not possess.
You cannot claim “boxers fight like themselves” while stripping out their natural weaknesses.
You cannot sell “authentic boxing” while designing like a fighting game.

Authenticity demands truth.
Balance demands sameness.

SCI chose sameness and marketed it as truth.

---

5. Boxing is not fair and should never be flattened for artificial balance

In real boxing:

• Slick movers neutralize brawlers

• Pressure fighters drown outboxers

• Counter punchers punish aggressors

• Range dominates short fighters

• Stamina differences change outcomes

• Some styles dominate certain matchups

• Certain fighters are naturally difficult for others

The phrase “we do not want any style to be overpowered” reveals a fear of real boxing dynamics.

Styles make fights.
Taking that away removes the sport’s identity.

What SCI calls “overpowered,” boxing calls “matchups.”

---

6. Missing gameplay style options show a lack of vision

Every major sports game offers multiple gameplay identities:

• Madden Simulation, Competitive, Arcade

• FIFA Casual, Competitive, Simulation

• UFC Simulation and Stand-and-Bang

• NBA 2K Sim, Park, Blacktop

• MLB The Show Casual, Simulation, Competitive

This is the industry standard.

Undisputed should have:

Amateur

Simplified movement. Safer gameplay. Reduced power. Perfect for beginners.

Hybrid (Open Class)

Balanced realism. Realistic tendencies. Authentic pacing. No artificial equalizers.

Pro

Hardcore authenticity.
True footwork differences.
Accurate stamina.
Real punch physics.
Real matchups.
Raw boxer identities.

Everyone wins.
No community suffers.
No compromise is needed.

But SCI chose one single gameplay philosophy:
a flattened hybrid that satisfies no one.

• Too unrealistic for purists

• Too inconsistent for casuals

• Too unbalanced for competitive players

A game cannot be everything at once.
Options fix that.

---

7. Authenticity requires embracing strengths and weaknesses, not hiding them

True boxing authenticity comes from:

• tendencies

• capabilities

• real ratings

• footwork identity

• punch identity

• defensive choices

• stamina realism

• matchup differences

SCI tries to avoid “unfairness” by erasing style differences, then presents the result as realism. That is deceptive messaging.

When the marketing uses authentic, realistic, and true-to-boxing, but the design philosophy flattens the sport to avoid player complaints, the word “authentic” loses all meaning.

You cannot fear styles and claim realism simultaneously.

---

Final Verdict

Steel City Interactive cannot use:

• “first game”

• “small team”

• “balancing”

• “avoiding overpowered styles”

as excuses anymore. Not after:

• five years of development

• dozens of licenses

• heavy marketing

• repeated claims of authenticity

• promises of realistic boxer behavior

• expansive marketing budgets

• influencer partnerships

• boxing-media collaborations

The missing features are not second-game luxuries. They are core fundamentals that define the sport.
And the design philosophy — afraid of style dominance and afraid of realism — is incompatible with the word “authentic.”

Boxing is not symmetrical.
Boxing is not fair.
Boxing is not a fighting game.
Styles make fights.
Strengths and weaknesses define matchups.
And options should have existed from day one.

SCI’s excuses are gone.
The contradictions are visible.
And the community sees the truth.