Poe’s Response Bank for an Ash Habib Interview
Opening Rule for the Interview
Before we start, I want to be clear: I’m not here to personally attack you. I’m here to ask the questions that a lot of hardcore boxing fans, offline players, career mode players, and simulation-minded players feel have not been answered directly.
So when I ask something, I’m not looking for a broad industry answer like “authenticity,” “balance,” “vision,” or “we listened to everyone.” I’m asking for specifics: what was promised, what changed, why it changed, who made that decision, and what data supports it.
1. If Ash Says: “Undisputed Was Made By Boxing Fans, For Boxing Fans.”
Poe’s Response:
I hear that, but that phrase needs to be challenged now.
When you say “made by boxing fans, for boxing fans,” which boxing fans are you talking about? Because a lot of hardcore boxing fans immediately noticed missing fundamentals: no proper clinching, no in-ring referee, no true inside fighting, limited career ecosystem, limited boxer individuality, and mechanics that often felt more like a hybrid fighting game than a boxing simulation.
So my question is not whether people on the team liked boxing. My question is: did the team understand boxing deeply enough to represent the sport mechanically?
Because being a fan of boxing and knowing how to translate boxing into gameplay are two different things.
Follow-up:
Were real boxing minds involved in shaping the mechanics at a deep level, or were boxing fans mostly used as marketing language?
2. If Ash Says: “We Tried to Please Everyone.”
Poe’s Response:
That sounds like a convenient explanation, but to me that is exactly what options, sliders, and separate gameplay lanes are for.
You do not have to ruin the hardcore experience to make the game accessible. You create casual settings, hybrid settings, and simulation settings. You allow players to choose. That is how sports games should handle different audiences.
So when you say you tried to please everyone, my response is: why didn’t you build systems that separated those audiences instead of blending everything into one compromised experience?
Follow-up:
Why was the answer to feedback not deeper options, sliders, and modes instead of pulling the game away from the realistic/simulation direction many fans originally supported?
3. If Ash Says: “We Should Have Stuck to Our Vision More.”
Poe’s Response:
But that raises a bigger question: what exactly was the vision?
Because the early ESBC messaging made a lot of hardcore fans believe the vision was a realistic, authentic, simulation-style boxing game. Then over time, the product felt more hybrid, more accessible, and more arcade-leaning.
So when you say you should have stuck to your vision, some fans hear that as blaming the community for the studio’s own design decisions.
The fans did not remove clinching. The fans did not remove the in-ring referee. The fans did not limit career mode. The fans did not decide how stamina, movement, damage, block fatigue, or boxer identity would work.
Those were development decisions.
Follow-up:
Can you name one major decision that hardcore boxing fans forced onto the game that made Undisputed worse?
4. If Ash Says: “The Loud Minority Was Impossible to Please.”
Poe’s Response:
This is where I need to push back.
Calling hardcore boxing fans the “loud minority” does not answer the question. It avoids the question.
Where is the data proving they are the minority? Was there a third-party survey? Was there a public study? Was there a transparent breakdown separating casual players, offline players, online players, simulation players, career mode players, and competitive players?
Because in sports gaming, the hardcore fans are usually the ones who understand the sport the deepest. They are often the ones who notice what casual players may not notice right away.
So calling them a loud minority can become a way to dismiss valid criticism without proving anything.
Follow-up:
Would you support a neutral third-party survey of boxing game fans, with public results, to find out what the community actually wants?
5. If Ash Says: “Authenticity Was Always the Goal.”
Poe’s Response:
Authenticity sounds good, but it is too broad.
Authenticity can mean presentation. It can mean licenses. It can mean ring walks. It can mean gloves, shorts, commentary, or arenas. But hardcore boxing fans are asking about gameplay authenticity.
Does the game authentically represent clinching? Inside fighting? Ring cutting? Referee involvement? Fatigue? Damage accumulation? Different boxing styles? Vulnerability? Foot placement? Defensive responsibility? Fighter identity?
A game can look authentic and still not play like boxing.
So I need more than the word “authenticity.” I need to know what systems define that authenticity.
Follow-up:
When you say “authentic,” do you mean authentic presentation, authentic gameplay, or both? And which exact gameplay systems prove it?
6. If Ash Says: “Realistic and Fun Have to Be Balanced.”
Poe’s Response:
I agree that a game has to be fun. But fun does not have to mean less realistic.
For a hardcore boxing fan, realism is the fun. Strategy is the fun. Risk and consequence are the fun. Different styles are the fun. Having to think like a boxer is the fun.
The problem is when companies assume casual players can only enjoy a dumbed-down version of the sport. That is how you turn boxing into a generic fighting game.
You can make the game accessible without taking away the depth. Tutorials, assists, sliders, difficulty settings, and separate rule contracts can help casual players learn without stripping the game of boxing identity.
Follow-up:
Why not make realistic boxing the foundation, then build accessibility around it instead of compromising the foundation itself?
7. If Ash Says: “This Was Our First Game.”
Poe’s Response:
I respect that Undisputed was the studio’s first major game, but that explanation has limits.
You were not making a small experimental title anymore once you had major boxer licenses, investors, a publisher, console release expectations, and years of public marketing. Also, the studio had experienced developers involved, so this cannot be framed as a group of complete beginners trying their best with no outside knowledge.
The issue is not that mistakes happened. The issue is whether the studio is taking full accountability for the direction of the game.
Follow-up:
At what point does “this was our first game” stop being an explanation and start becoming an excuse?
8. If Ash Says: “We Had to Make Tough Decisions.”
Poe’s Response:
I understand tough decisions happen in game development. But fans deserve to know which decisions were technical limitations, which were budget limitations, and which were creative choices.
Because those are not the same thing.
If clinching was removed because it was technically broken, say that. If the referee was removed because it was too hard to implement, say that. If inside fighting was limited because of design direction, say that.
The community can handle honesty. What frustrates people is vague messaging.
Follow-up:
Can you separate the missing features into three categories: technical limitation, budget/time limitation, and creative decision?
9. If Ash Says: “The Game Has 5.5 Million Players.”
Poe’s Response:
That number needs context.
Are we talking about full-price buyers, Game Pass players, free trial players, unique accounts, active players, or people who played once? Because player count does not automatically equal satisfaction.
A lot of games get big numbers because people are curious, because the sport has a hungry audience, or because the game is available through a service. That does not prove the game delivered what the original hardcore audience expected.
Follow-up:
What are the retention numbers, active player numbers, refund data, review trends, and satisfaction data from boxing fans specifically?
10. If Ash Says: “The Hardcore Fans Wanted Too Much.”
Poe’s Response:
Hardcore fans did not ask for magic. They asked for boxing fundamentals.
Clinching is not extra. A referee is not extra. Inside fighting is not extra. Stamina logic is not extra. Style identity is not extra. Defensive responsibility is not extra. Career depth in a boxing game is not extra.
Those are foundational pieces of boxing.
So the question is not whether hardcore fans wanted too much. The question is whether the game was built with boxing’s full identity in mind from the beginning.
Follow-up:
Which hardcore requests do you believe were unreasonable, and why?
11. If Ash Says: “We Listened to the Community.”
Poe’s Response:
Listening is not the same as correctly interpreting feedback.
Also, which community did you listen to? Discord? Steam? Reddit? Content creators? Casual players? Competitive online players? Offline players? Career mode players? Former boxers? Coaches? Simulation fans?
The boxing game community is not one group. That is why a neutral third-party survey matters.
Without transparent data, “we listened to the community” becomes too vague.
Follow-up:
Can you show how community feedback was collected, categorized, and prioritized?
12. If Ash Says: “Content Creators Gave Us Feedback.”
Poe’s Response:
Content creators are not automatically a substitute for the boxing community.
Some content creators understand boxing. Some do not. Some are focused on online competition. Some are focused on views. Some may avoid hard criticism to keep access.
That is why community feedback cannot only go through creators, Discord groups, or selected voices.
Hardcore boxing fans, older Fight Night fans, offline players, former boxers, and career mode players deserve to be heard directly.
Follow-up:
Why not let the broader boxing game community speak through a neutral third-party survey instead of relying on filtered feedback?
13. If Ash Says: “We Had to Think About Casual Players Too.”
Poe’s Response:
Nobody is saying casual players should be ignored.
The issue is that casual players should not be used as the reason to weaken the boxing foundation.
Casual players can learn. That is what tutorials, assists, beginner settings, and accessibility options are for. A casual player does not need the sport watered down. They need a pathway into the sport.
A realistic boxing game can make a hardcore fan out of a casual player if the game teaches them properly.
Follow-up:
Why are casual players treated like they cannot appreciate depth when given the right tools to learn?
14. If Ash Says: “Simulation Does Not Sell.”
Poe’s Response:
Then prove it with data.
Because boxing fans have not had a true modern boxing simulation with deep career, full creation, referee logic, clinching, inside fighting, real stamina, and authentic boxer identity.
So it is unfair to say simulation does not sell when the market has barely been given a proper modern simulation boxing game to support.
Also, hardcore depth and commercial success are not enemies. Sports games can have assists, sliders, modes, and different settings.
Follow-up:
What modern boxing simulation failed commercially with all the proper features included? Because fans cannot reject what they were never truly given.
15. If Ash Says: “Undisputed 2 Will Be Better Because We Have More Experience Now.”
Poe’s Response:
Experience matters, but fans need more than that.
They need to know what lessons were actually learned. Not just “new engine,” not just “more experience,” not just “we are rebuilding.” The community needs specifics.
Will there be a real in-ring referee? Will clinching return properly? Will inside fighting be rebuilt? Will career mode be deeper? Will boxer identity be expanded? Will offline players get sliders, CPU vs CPU, and deep customization? Will hardcore simulation be protected as its own lane?
Because without specifics, “we have more experience now” sounds like another marketing reset.
Follow-up:
What specific systems are being rebuilt because of the criticism from Undisputed?
16. If Ash Says: “We Cannot Talk About Undisputed 2 Yet.”
Poe’s Response:
I understand you may not be able to reveal everything. But you can still talk about philosophy.
You can tell fans whether the sequel is aiming for a deeper simulation foundation or another broad hybrid experience. You can tell fans whether the missing fundamentals are being treated as priorities. You can tell fans whether offline players, career mode players, and hardcore boxing fans are being taken seriously.
So I’m not asking for a release date or secret features. I’m asking for direction.
Follow-up:
Philosophically, is the next game being built around realistic boxing first, or broad accessibility first?
17. If Ash Says: “We Are Proud of What We Built.”
Poe’s Response:
You can be proud of making a boxing game after years without one. I respect that.
But pride should not stop accountability.
The community can appreciate that Undisputed brought boxing back to gaming while still saying the game did not fully deliver on the realistic boxing experience many fans thought they were supporting.
Both things can be true.
Follow-up:
Can you acknowledge that many hardcore boxing fans feel the game shifted away from what ESBC originally represented?
18. If Ash Says: “People Online Are Too Negative.”
Poe’s Response:
Some people are toxic. I agree with that. Personal attacks should not be defended.
But criticism is not automatically negativity.
When fans point out missing boxing systems, weak mechanics, lack of depth, or unclear communication, that is not hate. That is feedback.
The danger is when a studio uses toxic comments as a shield to avoid answering valid criticism.
Follow-up:
How do you separate toxic comments from legitimate boxing criticism?
19. If Ash Says: “The Team Worked Hard.”
Poe’s Response:
I do not doubt that the team worked hard.
But hard work and correct direction are not the same thing.
A team can work hard and still make the wrong design decisions. A team can care and still misunderstand what hardcore fans are asking for. A team can put years into a project and still miss foundational boxing elements.
The discussion is not whether people worked hard. The discussion is whether the game represented boxing the way it was marketed and expected to.
Follow-up:
What would you say to fans who respect the effort but still feel the final direction missed the mark?
20. If Ash Says: “We Had to Make the Game Playable Online.”
Poe’s Response:
Online matters, but online should not dictate the entire boxing experience.
Offline players, career mode players, CPU vs CPU players, and simulation players should not lose depth because online balance is hard.
That is exactly why sports games need separate rule sets, separate sliders, and separate modes. Online ranked can have its own rules. Offline simulation can have its own rules.
One version of gameplay should not be forced on everybody.
Follow-up:
Why not separate online balance from offline realism?
21. If Ash Says: “Some Features Sound Easy But Are Hard to Build.”
Poe’s Response:
I agree. Game development is hard.
But fans were not asking for these things after the game was finished. Many of these features were discussed during the years when the game was still being shaped.
If something was too difficult, the studio should have communicated that clearly. If a feature was not going to make it, fans should not have been left believing the game was still moving toward that full boxing vision.
Follow-up:
Which major boxing features were too difficult to build properly, and when did the studio know they would not make it into the game?
22. If Ash Says: “The Community Had Unrealistic Expectations.”
Poe’s Response:
Some expectations may have been high, but were they unrealistic based on the way the game was presented?
That is the real issue.
If the game is marketed around realism, authenticity, and being built for boxing fans, then fans are going to expect boxing fundamentals. That is not unrealistic. That is the standard created by the messaging.
Follow-up:
Do you believe the marketing created expectations that the final game could not meet?
23. If Ash Says: “We Never Said It Would Be a Pure Simulation.”
Poe’s Response:
Then that should have been made extremely clear from the beginning.
Because many hardcore fans supported ESBC because they believed it was aiming to be the realistic boxing game they had been waiting for. If the vision was always hybrid, then that should have been stated plainly.
Fans should not have had to decode words like “authentic,” “realistic,” “balanced,” or “made by boxing fans.”
Follow-up:
Would you agree that clearer language earlier could have prevented a lot of backlash?
24. If Ash Says: “We Need to Appeal to a Wider Audience.”
Poe’s Response:
A wider audience does not mean you abandon the sport’s identity.
Boxing already has drama, strategy, violence, skill, personalities, rivalries, knockouts, politics, styles, gyms, promoters, trainers, and career stories. The sport has everything a game needs.
The answer is not to make boxing less like boxing. The answer is to teach players why boxing is exciting.
Follow-up:
Why does “wider audience” so often mean less boxing depth instead of better boxing education?
25. If Ash Says: “We Will Take Feedback Going Forward.”
Poe’s Response:
That sounds good, but fans need a better system than vague feedback collection.
There needs to be a serious third-party survey. Not just Discord posts. Not just creator feedback. Not just selected community voices.
A neutral survey could separate offline, online, casual, hardcore, career mode, competitive, and simulation players. Then the results should be made public.
That would stop the guessing. It would stop the “loud minority” argument. It would show what the community actually wants.
Follow-up:
Will you support a neutral third-party survey with public results?
26. If Ash Tries to Redirect to Sales, Licenses, or Presentation
Poe’s Response:
I respect the licenses. I respect the roster. I respect the presentation work.
But licenses do not answer gameplay concerns.
Muhammad Ali being in the game does not replace footwork logic. Licensed boxers do not replace clinching. Real venues do not replace the referee. Presentation does not replace inside fighting. A big roster does not replace boxer individuality.
So I want to bring this back to mechanics.
Follow-up:
What are the gameplay systems that make each boxer feel mechanically different beyond ratings and animations?
27. If Ash Gives a Long Answer Without Answering
Poe’s Response:
I appreciate the explanation, but I want to bring you back to the direct question.
The question was not whether game development is difficult. The question was why a boxing game marketed around realism and authenticity launched without several core boxing systems.
So I’ll ask it again more directly.
Follow-up:
Was the absence of those systems a technical limitation, a budget limitation, or a design choice?
28. If Ash Says: “We Cannot Please Everybody.”
Poe’s Response:
Nobody expects you to please everybody.
But the issue is whether the game properly served the audience it originally attracted: hardcore boxing fans who wanted a real boxing game.
When a game tries to please everyone by blending everything together, it can end up satisfying nobody fully.
That is why options matter. That is why sliders matter. That is why separate gameplay lanes matter.
Follow-up:
Why not build separate experiences instead of forcing one compromise experience?
29. If Ash Says: “Players Asked for Faster Gameplay.”
Poe’s Response:
Which players?
Were they online ranked players? Casual players? Content creators? Discord players? Former boxers? Offline players? Career mode players?
Because when you say “players asked,” the next question is always: which players, how many, and where is the data?
A vocal online group should not automatically define the entire boxing game experience.
Follow-up:
Did you separate online feedback from offline simulation feedback before making gameplay changes?
30. If Ash Says: “We Are Still Learning.”
Poe’s Response:
Learning is good. But learning has to come with accountability.
The community needs to know what you learned specifically. Did you learn that hardcore fans need to be surveyed properly? Did you learn that boxing mechanics cannot be treated as optional? Did you learn that vague marketing language creates mistrust? Did you learn that offline and online need separate design priorities?
Because “we are still learning” only matters if the next product proves the lesson was learned.
Follow-up:
What are the top five lessons you learned from Undisputed that will directly change the next boxing game?
Closing Statement
I want to end by saying this: hardcore boxing fans are not the enemy. The people asking hard questions are not trying to destroy boxing games. A lot of us have been waiting decades for boxing to be respected properly in gaming.
We are not asking for perfection. We are asking for honesty, direction, data, and accountability.
If Undisputed was always meant to be a broad hybrid game, then say that clearly. If it was meant to be a realistic boxing game but the studio could not fully deliver, say that clearly too.
But do not dismiss hardcore fans as a loud minority without data. Do not hide behind words like authenticity and balance without explaining what they mean mechanically. Do not say made by boxing fans for boxing fans without being clear about which boxing fans shaped the game.
The boxing community deserves better than slogans.
We deserve answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment