The Most Common Excuses Game Companies Use, And Why Fans Are Tired of Them

---

The Most Common Excuses Game Companies Use,  And Why Fans Are Tired of Them

1. “It’s Too Hard/Too Complex.”

This is the go-to shield.

On the surface, it sounds honest. Game development is hard. Systems are complex. But the problem isn’t difficulty; it’s selective difficulty.

Companies magically find solutions when:

• Monetization is involved

• Live-service retention is involved

• Cosmetic pipelines are involved

Suddenly, nothing is “too hard” when it drives revenue. But when fans ask for:

• Deeper career logic

• Authentic sport mechanics

• Better AI behavior

• Realistic simulation systems

Now it’s “technically infeasible.”

Translation:

“It’s hard to do this and still ship on our timeline and budget.”

That’s a production decision, not a technical limitation.

---

2. “Most Players Don’t Want That”

This one is pure assumption disguised as data.

Rarely do studios:

• Run public surveys

• Share metrics transparently

• Segment casual vs hardcore audiences honestly

Instead, they lean on:

• Focus groups of non-fans

• Engagement metrics from shallow systems

• Loud social media takes

The irony?
Sports games have aging audiences. The average fan today is older, more informed, and wants more depth, not less.

What they usually mean is:

“The players we design for don’t want that.”

And that’s often because the game itself trained them not to expect more.

---

3. “We Have to Make It Accessible”

Accessibility has become a buzzword weaponized against depth.

Accessibility should mean:

• Optional assists

• Scalable difficulty

• Clear onboarding

What it’s used to justify instead:

• Removing mechanics

• Flattening skill ceilings

• Stripping nuance

Here’s the truth:
Depth and accessibility are not opposites.
Good design lets new players enter and experienced players stay.

Games fail when they:

• Design only for first-time users

• Never reward mastery

• Fear intimidating players who were never the core audience anyway

---

4. “We’ll Add It Later”

This excuse relies on fan patience and short memory.

“Later” often means:

• After launch buzz dies

• After reviews are locked

• After sales goals are hit

And when it does arrive:

• It’s stripped-down

• Poorly integrated

• Untuned and unsupported

Live-service didn’t fail because of the model.
It failed because studios used it as permission to ship unfinished ideas.

---

5. “That’s Not Realistic”

This one is especially insulting in sports games.

Developers will reject realism for:

• Fatigue systems

• Psychological factors

• Style-based outcomes

• Strategic pacing

But then allow:

• Impossible stamina recovery

• Homogenized athletes

• Repetitive outcomes

• Arcade logic masquerading as simulation

What they really mean is:

“We don’t know how to design this system cleanly.”

Instead of saying that, they question the sport itself.

---

6. “We Don’t Want to Alienate Casual Players”

This excuse assumes casual players are fragile.

Casual players:

• Learn complex shooters

• Master RPG systems

• Navigate massive open worlds

But somehow can’t handle:

• Tactical depth

• Real sport logic

• Consequences

The reality:
Casual players don’t quit because games are deep.
They quit because games are boring, repetitive, or disrespectful to their intelligence.

---

7. “We Have Limited Resources”

This is the most honest excuse, and still misleading.

Studios absolutely have limits.
What fans question is priority, not capacity.

If resources exist for:

• Annual releases

• Marketing beats

• Licensed soundtracks

• Cosmetic pipelines

Then resources also exist for:

• Core system refinement

• AI depth

• Authentic mechanics

This is a leadership decision, not a resource shortage.

---

8. “Fans Don’t Agree on What They Want”

This one deflects accountability.

Yes, fans disagree, always have.
That’s not an excuse to do nothing.

Good studios:

• Identify core pillars

• Build systems that support multiple playstyles

• Let players express preference through systems, not menus

Indecision isn’t community-driven.
It’s design insecurity.

---

The Underlying Truth Fans Already See

Most excuses boil down to this:

“We’re optimizing for predictability, not authenticity.”

Predictable schedules
Predictable costs
Predictable engagement metrics

But sports, especially boxing, are not predictable.
They are layered, psychological, stylistic, and human.

When games strip that away, fans don’t just feel disappointed.
They feel talked down to.

---

Why This Keeps Failing

• Fans aren’t asking for perfection

• They’re asking for respect for the sport

• They’re asking for honest design intent

• They’re asking for options instead of excuses

And the most damaging part?

When companies repeat these narratives long enough, they start believing them and stop believing in the intelligence of their own audience.

The Excuses Game Companies Use, Expanded and Fully Exposed

9. “We Have to Balance the Game”

Balance is often used as a reason to flatten reality.

In sports, balance is not equality. Balance is tension. Styles beating styles. Strengths creating weaknesses elsewhere.

What studios often do instead:

• Remove dominant traits

• Normalize athletes

• Reduce variance

• Cap effectiveness across the board

That is not balance. That is sterilization.

Real balance comes from:

• Tradeoffs

• Risk vs reward

• Fatigue, momentum, psychology

• Situational dominance, not permanent dominance

When every athlete feels viable in every situation, the sport stops being the sport.

---

10. “That Would Be Exploitable”

This excuse usually appears when developers fear skilled players.

Anything deep can be exploited if:

• AI does not adapt

• Systems do not interact

• Counterplay is missing

Instead of building counters, studios remove mechanics.

That is backwards design.

Exploits are not proof a system is bad. They are proof:

• The system matters

• Players are engaging with it

• The system needs iteration, not deletion

Great games evolve through players breaking them. Weak games panic when players learn them.

---

11. “It Would Confuse Players”

Confusion comes from bad communication, not depth.

Players are confused when:

• Feedback is unclear

• Systems are hidden

• Consequences feel random

• Tutorials explain controls but not intent

Players are not confused by depth when:

• Visuals tell the story

• Audio reinforces decisions

• Animations show cause and effect

• Results feel earned

Confusion is a UX problem being blamed on design ambition.

---

12. “It’s Not Fun”

This is the most subjective excuse and the most dangerous.

Fun is not one thing.
Fun depends on:

• Context

• Player mindset

• Long term investment

What many studios really mean is:
“This is not instantly gratifying.”

Sports are not supposed to be instantly gratifying. They are supposed to be earned.

Tension, frustration, learning, failure, adjustment, mastery.
That is where long term fun lives.

If fun is defined only by immediate dopamine, sports games will always feel shallow.

---

13. “Realism Would Slow the Game Down”

This excuse misunderstands realism entirely.

Realism does not mean slow.
Realism means variable pace.

Fast when:

• Momentum shifts

• Openings appear

• A fighter is hurt

Slow when:

• Fatigue sets in

• Respect is established

• Information is being gathered

Flat pacing is the problem, not realism.

When everything is fast, nothing feels fast.

---

14. “We Can’t Please Everyone”

This excuse is used to avoid choosing a vision.

No one is asking to please everyone.
Fans are asking you to:

• Commit to the sport

• Respect its identity

• Build systems that reflect reality

Trying to please everyone leads to:

• Compromised mechanics

• Mixed messaging

• Identity loss

Clear vision attracts the right audience. Vague vision attracts no one deeply.

---

15. “Other Games Don’t Do That Either”

This is creative stagnation disguised as industry logic.

Sports games are compared to:

• Their competitors

• Their predecessors

• Their own past versions

Rarely are they compared to:

• What the sport actually is

• What modern technology allows

• What fans have been asking for consistently

Innovation does not come from copying limitations. It comes from questioning them.

---

16. “We Have to Ship”

This is the quiet truth behind most excuses.

Deadlines exist.
Budgets exist.
Publishers exist.

Fans understand that.

What they do not accept is when:

• Marketing promises depth that design avoids

• Limitations are framed as philosophy

• Shortcuts are framed as creative choices

Honesty earns patience. Spin burns trust.

---

The Pattern Fans Have Noticed

All these excuses share a pattern.

They shift responsibility away from:

• Design priorities

• Leadership decisions

• Risk aversion

• Vision weakness

And place it onto:

• Players

• The sport

• Technology

• “The market”

Fans are not fooled anymore.

They see:

• What other genres accomplish

• What smaller teams achieve

• What mods and simulations do

• What technology already supports

The question is no longer “can this be done?”
The question is “why wasn’t it prioritized?”

---

Why This Hurts Boxing Games More Than Any Other Sport

Boxing is not plug and play.
It relies on:

• Subtlety

• Psychology

• Timing

• Consequences

• Style interaction

When developers remove complexity, boxing collapses faster than other sports.

You cannot fake:

• Ring IQ

• Fatigue

• Fear

• Momentum

• Respect

Without those, you are not simulating boxing.
You are animating punches.

---

What Fans Are Actually Asking For

Not perfection.
Not infinite realism.
Not developer burnout.

They are asking for:

• Honest intent

• Systems that matter

• Choices with consequences

• Respect for the sport’s intelligence

• Options instead of excuses

When fans push back, it is not entitlement.
It is investment.

People do not argue this hard about things they do not care about.