My response to Mike Straw interview(Insider Gaming).  Please support Mike Straw interview/article

Investigative Article: Ash Habib’s Interview Raises More Questions Than It Answers About Undisputed, SCI, and the Boxing Game Community

There are many things people can pick apart in Mike Straw’s interview with Steel City Interactive owner Ash Habib. The interview was supposed to give insight into what SCI learned from Undisputed, but for many hardcore boxing game fans, it exposed the same problem that has followed the game from ESBC to Undisputed: the messaging does not line up with the product, the development direction, or the way the hardcore boxing community has been treated.

The biggest statement that deserves scrutiny is the familiar claim that Undisputed was made “by boxing fans, for boxing fans.” That sounds good as a marketing line, but the game itself has often told a different story. A game truly built by knowledgeable boxing people should not have launched without a full in-ring referee, proper clinching, deep inside fighting, realistic stamina logic, deeper ring generalship, authentic boxer identity, better punch consequences, better ropes logic, and a career ecosystem that reflects the actual sport of boxing.

Those are not small details. Those are foundational boxing details.

That is why the “made by boxing fans” claim feels false to many in the community. It is not that nobody at SCI likes boxing. The issue is that liking boxing is not the same as understanding boxing deeply enough to build a realistic simulation of it. Many decisions in Undisputed made it look like key people involved either did not understand the sport, did not understand what hardcore boxing fans were asking for, or allowed newer developers to pull the game in a direction that moved away from the original ESBC promise.

The “Loud Minority” Problem

One of the most questionable parts of the interview is the framing of hardcore fans as a loud minority.

This is where the logic starts falling apart.

SCI marketed Undisputed as authentic. SCI marketed it as realistic. SCI used the language of simulation. SCI built the early hype around the idea that this would not just be another arcade fighting game with boxing gloves. The hardcore boxing fans were not random outsiders demanding something strange. They were the people who believed the original promise.

So why are those same fans now being framed like a problem?

If the hardcore community asked for more realism, more boxing logic, deeper mechanics, better options, and more authentic systems, that should not be treated as noise. That should be treated as the core audience doing exactly what SCI’s marketing invited them to do.

Calling them hardcore fans on one hand, then implying they are a loud minority on the other, sends a mixed message. Are they the foundation of the game’s identity, or are they the inconvenience that SCI feels it listened to too much?

You cannot sell a game on authenticity, realism, and boxing knowledge, then turn around and suggest that the people demanding those very things are the reason the direction became difficult.

Blaming the Fans Avoids the Real Issue

The interview presents the idea that SCI tried to please too many people and should have stuck to its vision more often. But that explanation leaves out one major point: options exist for this exact reason.

If one group wants a more realistic experience and another group wants faster, easier, more arcade-friendly gameplay, the solution should not be to blame the fans. The solution is to build proper options, sliders, rule sets, and gameplay lanes.

That is what serious sports games do.

A boxing game could have had a casual lane, a hybrid lane, and a simulation lane. It could have had stamina sliders, damage sliders, referee sliders, clinch sliders, AI behavior sliders, punch tracking sliders, movement sliders, judging sliders, and online rule contracts. The problem was never that the community had different play styles. The problem was that SCI did not build enough structure to support those different play styles.

That is not the fans’ fault.

That is a design leadership issue.

When a studio makes one global gameplay change to satisfy one group, then another group gets upset, that is not proof that the fans are impossible to please. That is proof that the game lacked the necessary systems to separate play styles. A deep boxing game should not force everyone into one universal tuning philosophy.

“Sticking to the Vision” Only Works If the Vision Was Clear

Ash Habib saying SCI should have “stuck to its guns” sounds strong on the surface, but it raises a bigger question: what exactly was the vision?

Was the vision a realistic boxing simulation?

Was the vision a competitive online fighting game?

Was the vision an accessible sports title for casual players?

Was the vision a hybrid?

Was the vision changed after newer developers entered the picture?

This matters because many fans believe the game shifted away from the original ESBC identity. Early ESBC created expectations of a more authentic, deeper, more simulation-focused boxing experience. But Undisputed later became something that often felt caught between realism, arcade accessibility, online balancing, and incomplete systems.

That is why the “we should have stuck to our vision” argument feels incomplete. If the vision was realism, then hardcore fans were not pulling SCI away from it. They were trying to pull SCI back toward it.

The fans did not remove clinching. The fans did not remove the in-ring referee. The fans did not build shallow inside fighting. The fans did not create universal loose movement. The fans did not decide that every boxer should feel too similar in key areas. The fans did not decide the depth of career mode, creation tools, AI tendencies, or presentation systems.

Those were development decisions.

The Deontay Wilder Example Does Not Explain the Bigger Problem

The Wilder overhand issue is being used as an example of the difficulty of balancing the game. Yes, online exploits are real. Yes, some players will abuse powerful mechanics. Yes, some people react poorly when their exploit is patched. Death threats are disgusting and should never be excused.

But one toxic reaction from a portion of players should not become a shield against legitimate criticism.

The Wilder situation does not explain why the game lacked major boxing systems. It does not explain why offline fans felt underserved. It does not explain why the career ecosystem was not deeper. It does not explain why CPU vs CPU, deeper tendencies, referee presence, clinching, realistic ring cutting, and boxer individuality were not where they needed to be.

Balancing one boxer’s overhand is not the same as building a complete boxing simulation.

SCI cannot use the most extreme behavior from angry players to dismiss the broader hardcore community’s serious concerns. The community asking for a better boxing game is not the same as people sending threats. Those groups should not be blended together.

The Poe Factor: Why the Silence Feels Political

Another thing that deserves attention is the lack of communication with Poe and other hardcore boxing game voices who have consistently pushed for a more realistic boxing game.

Poe has been one of the loudest, most consistent, and most detailed voices in the boxing video game community. He has decades of gaming experience, real boxing experience, community leadership experience, and a long public record of breaking down what a serious boxing game needs. He has criticized SCI, but criticism is not the same as bad faith.

By his account, he and Ash Habib never had a bad personal interaction. That makes the lack of communication even more interesting. When someone with boxing experience, gaming experience, and a deep blueprint for the genre is ignored, it creates questions.

Was Ash advised not to engage?

Did someone inside or around SCI frame Poe as a problem?

Did SCI prefer safer voices who would not challenge the direction of the game as hard?

There may be no public proof that someone “got into Ash’s ear,” so that should not be stated as fact. But the perception is understandable. When a company avoids one of the most detailed hardcore voices while claiming to care about the boxing community, people are going to question why.

If SCI truly wants to understand the hardcore boxing audience, avoiding Poe makes little sense.

The Real Issue: SCI Listened Selectively

The interview makes it sound like SCI listened too much. But many hardcore fans would argue the opposite: SCI listened selectively.

They may have listened to some gameplay complaints. They may have reacted to online pressure. They may have adjusted certain systems based on immediate backlash. But did they truly listen to the deeper boxing simulation community?

Did they listen to the people asking for a real in-ring referee?

Did they listen to the people asking for clinching and inside fighting?

Did they listen to the people asking for CPU vs CPU?

Did they listen to the people asking for deeper AI tendencies and boxer individuality?

Did they listen to the people asking for a true career ecosystem?

Did they listen to the people asking for creation depth, sliders, offline options, and authentic boxing presentation?

That is the difference between reacting and listening.

Reacting to complaints is not the same as building from a clear boxing philosophy.

Options Would Have Protected the Vision

The most frustrating part is that SCI did not have to choose between casuals and hardcore fans. A well-designed boxing game could serve both without compromising the identity of either.

That is what options are for.

If some players want faster stamina recovery, give them a casual setting.

If hardcore fans want punishing stamina, realistic damage, slower footwork, clinch-heavy fights, strict referees, and deeper judging, give them a simulation setting.

If online players want balance, create ranked rule sets.

If offline players want realism, give them full control.

If content creators want chaos, let them create custom fight cards and arcade-style matchups.

If purists want boxing, let them box.

The problem was not that fans wanted different things. The problem was that Undisputed did not provide enough lanes for those different audiences.

The Question SCI Still Has Not Answered

The biggest unanswered question from the interview is simple:

Who exactly is Undisputed for?

If it is for boxing fans, then why are hardcore boxing fans treated like the difficult crowd?

If it is realistic and authentic, then why are so many core boxing systems missing or underdeveloped?

If the issue was trying to please everyone, why were there not more options to separate different audiences?

If Ash should have stuck to his vision, what was that vision, and who changed it?

If the developers made the decisions, why are the fans being positioned as the reason the game lost direction?

Those are fair questions. They are not hate. They are not toxicity. They are accountability.

Final Word

Mike Straw’s interview with Ash Habib did not close the book on Undisputed. It opened more pages.

The interview suggests SCI learned that it cannot please everyone. But hardcore boxing fans have been saying something more specific: stop trying to make one version of boxing satisfy everyone. Build the proper systems. Build the proper options. Build the proper simulation lane. Let casuals have their fun, but do not sacrifice the sport to chase everybody at once.

The hardcore fans did not ruin Undisputed. The hardcore fans warned SCI about the direction.

The fans did not make the game incomplete. The fans did not remove major boxing systems. The fans did not decide the final identity. The fans did not force SCI to blur the line between simulation, hybrid, and arcade.

SCI made those decisions.

If Ash Habib wants to stick to his guns moving forward, then the first step is making clear what those guns actually are. If the vision is authentic boxing, then SCI needs to stop framing hardcore boxing fans like a problem and start treating them like the audience that understood the assignment from the beginning.

Because a true boxing simulation is not built by blaming the fans who asked for boxing.

It is built by listening to the right ones.