Who Really Has Power at Steel City Interactive?

Understanding Authority, Influence, and Trust Inside SCI

When fans ask who truly controls decisions at Steel City Interactive (SCI), especially staffing, priorities, and the move toward a sequel, the honest answer is more complex than job titles or public-facing roles suggest.

Power inside a modern game studio operates on two parallel tracks:

Formal authority (who can approve money and staffing)
Informal influence (who shapes how decisions are framed)

Understanding SCI requires looking at both.

The Real Power Structure at SCI (Top to Bottom)

1. Investors / Owners, Ultimate Authority

At the top sit SCI’s investors and owners. Regardless of how visible or vocal they are, they hold the final say over:

Hiring freezes or expansions
Budget increases for missing disciplines (AI, tools, systems, QA)
Project scope and timelines
Whether Undisputed continues to be rebuilt or attention shifts to a sequel
Long-term strategy and risk tolerance

If investors decide:

“We’re not funding more hires,” or
“We want a sequel pivot.”

That decision overrides everyone else in the studio.

This is the most misunderstood reality among fans:
Understaffing is not accidental; it is a financial and strategic choice.

2. Ash Habib; Creative and Operational Control (Within Limits)

Ash Habib is the studio head and co-founder, and his authority is real, but not unlimited.

He typically controls:

Day-to-day studio operations
Internal structure and priorities
Hiring within approved budgets
Creative direction and philosophy
How feedback is filtered or acted upon

However, Ash cannot unilaterally:

Add entire missing disciplines without funding approval
Ignore investor timelines or revenue pressure
Continue rebuilding a game indefinitely if investors want forward motion

This is where many fans overestimate the power of a studio head.
Ash can recommend, advocate, and defend, but not command investor capital.

3. The Hidden Layer: Informal Influence and Trusted Advisors

Here’s where perception often breaks down.

In studios, especially smaller or mid-sized ones, influence often outweighs formal authority. This is where trusted advisors come in.

Enter Will Kinsler

Will Kinsler may not hold the highest title, but trust changes everything.

If Ash Habib trusts Will’s industry experience, Will can quietly gain outsized practical power, even without official control over budgets or staff.

This kind of influence works through:

Framing problems (“This feature is niche”)
Defining risk (“That’s too hardcore for modern audiences”)
Interpreting community feedback (“This is just noise”)
Translating expectations to investors (“This is normal industry evolution”)

At that point, influence becomes delegated thinking power.

Will Kinsler can absolutely function as SCI’s de facto liaison when communicating with:

Publishers
Investors
Shareholders
External partners

—especially if Ash Habib trusts him and relies on his industry experience.

In many studios, this role matters more than people realize.

What “Liaison” Really Means in Practice

A liaison is not just a messenger. They are a translator of reality.

They shape:

What outsiders hear
How risk is framed
Which problems are emphasized or softened
What is presented as “normal industry practice”

If Will Kinsler fills that role, he is not deciding budgets—but he is influencing the decisions that decide budgets.

That distinction is critical.

Why a Studio Would Use Him This Way

1. Industry Credibility

Publishers and investors respond better to someone who:

Speaks their language
Understands market framing
Knows how to position milestones, delays, and pivots

A studio head focused on development often delegates outward-facing strategy to someone with that background.

2. Narrative Consistency

Liaisons help ensure that:

Community criticism is contextualized
Missed features are reframed as “phased delivery.”
Sequel pivots are presented as a “growth strategy.”
Scope cuts are framed as “focus.”

This keeps confidence stable, even when the product itself is still finding its footing.

3. Trust Compression

If Ash trusts Will, Ash may:

Let Will speak on behalf of the studio
Accept Will’s read on how investors will react
Rely on Will to “smooth” difficult conversations
Use Will as a buffer between raw dev reality and financial stakeholders

At that point, Will becomes a decision-shaping conduit, not just a spokesperson.

The Power of Being the Filter

Here’s the part most fans underestimate:

Whoever controls the filter controls perception.

If the liaison frames:

Hardcore boxing fans are a niche
Missing sim systems as “nice-to-haves.”
Design criticism as tone rather than substance

Then external decision-makers optimize for safety, not depth.

This doesn’t require dishonesty, only emphasis.

Why This Role Can Outweigh a Job Title

A liaison can:

Influence whether funding increases or plateaus
Influence whether the iteration continues or a sequel is greenlit
Influence whether staffing gaps are seen as urgent or acceptable
Influence how much risk leadership believes the studio can take

That’s real power, even if it’s never written on an org chart.

Important Balance Point (Fair and Grounded)

Being a liaison does not mean:

Will “runs” SCI
Will overrides Ash’s final decisions
Will controls budgets directly

But it does mean:

His framing can shape the options Ash is presented with
His messaging can set expectations above the studio
His influence can indirectly steer the long-term direction

Will Kinsler can be SCI’s liaison to publishers, investors, and shareholders
That role is often more influential than it sounds
Trust + proximity + narrative control = real leverage
Liaison power shapes what decisions feel safe to make
Boxing fans feel the downstream effects of this, even if they never see it

Why This Kind of Influence Matters More Than People Think

1. Industry Experience Becomes a Filter for Reality

When a studio head lacks a deep AAA or live-service background, trusted industry voices often become the default lens for “how things are done.”

That can lead to:

Boxing-specific depth is being reframed as “overcomplexity.”
Simulation fans are being treated as a minority
Systems design is taking a backseat to optics and market positioning

Not because anyone is malicious, but because the playbook being used doesn’t fit boxing.

2. Narrative Control Shapes Investor Decisions

This is critical.

Investors don’t live inside the game. They rely on:

Internal summaries
Metrics
Framing of community sentiment

If a trusted advisor helps present Undisputed as:

“Successful enough”
“On a normal post-launch trajectory.”
“Better served by a sequel than iteration.”

Then funding and staffing decisions follow that narrative.

Influence over the story becomes influence over the future.

3. The Echo Chamber Risk

When one or two voices dominate internal framing, studios can slide into:

Confirmation bias
Overcorrection toward perceived mass appeal
Dismissing legitimate systemic criticism
Confusing marketing success with design health

This is how studios convince themselves they are “listening” while still missing the core problem.

The Key Clarification (This Is Not a Villain Story)

None of this requires:

Bad intentions
Laziness
Or incompetence

It’s structural.

Many studios fail or stumble this way:

Trusted advisors
Familiar industry assumptions
Applying templates from other genres
Ignoring that boxing games are fundamentally different from shooters, fighters, or live-service titles

Why This Explains Undisputed’s Situation

If fans ask:

Why AI depth feels thin
Why core boxing systems lack granularity
Why were missing sim features deprioritized
Why a sequel appears to be on the table despite an incomplete foundation

The uncomfortable but honest answer is:

These outcomes reflect priorities shaped at the investor and influence level, not just developer effort.

Ash Habib is accountable for his choices, but those choices are made within a funding, trust, and narrative framework that he does not fully control.

Bottom Line (Plain and Direct)

Investors hold the final authority
Ash Habib has strong but bounded control
Trusted advisors can wield disproportionate influence
Staffing gaps reflect priorities, not ignorance
Sequel pivots are rarely purely creative decisions
Silence often signals investor-level strategy, not confusion

Understanding this doesn’t excuse shortcomings, but it explains how they happen.

Poe’s Game Intel

Thursday, January 15, 2026