56 Questions for Steel City Interactive CEO Ash Habib

SCI has now acknowledged that parts of Undisputed failed to reach its own quality bar, that the existing architecture was not sustainable, and that development has shifted to a ground-up sequel in Unreal Engine—with no further updates planned for the original game. (Play Undisputed)

Ash Habib has also said SCI should have “stuck to its guns,” describing some critics as a “loud vocal minority” and saying feedback caused the game to change toward one play style. (Insider Gaming) Those statements deserve detailed follow-up because reviews identified substantive problems such as the missing clinch system, a middling career mode, unrealistic get-up sequences, underdeveloped referee and corner presentation, input delay, inconsistent punch behavior, and repetitive commentary. (Shacknews)

The questions marked 🔥 are the no-holds-barred questions.

I. The Original ESBC Vision and the Hype

1. When ESBC first captured the boxing community’s attention, what were the non-negotiable pillars of the game you intended to make?

2. Was the original goal a realistic boxing simulation, an accessible hybrid game, an online competitive fighting game, or something else?

3. At what point did the vision begin changing from the early ESBC presentation into the final version of Undisputed?

4. Who made the final decision to change that direction: you, the development leads, the publisher, investors, focus testers, or a combination?

5. Which early features and concepts were actual development commitments, and which were only ideas SCI hoped to implement?

6. 🔥 Do you accept that the early ESBC footage and messaging created expectations that the finished product did not satisfy?

7. Did SCI allow the size of the licensed roster, boxer likenesses, and partnerships to become stronger selling points than the actual depth of the boxing systems?

II. Responsibility and Accountability

8. You said the original game did not meet SCI’s quality bar. What are the five biggest areas where it failed that standard?

9. 🔥 Why did SCI not communicate those architectural and quality problems clearly before asking console customers to purchase the full release?

10. When did management first realize that the underlying architecture could not support the game SCI originally envisioned?

11. 🔥 Were customers sold a finished boxing game after SCI already knew that some of its most important systems could not be properly completed on the existing foundation?

12. As CEO, what decisions do you personally accept responsibility for—not the community, publisher, developers, deadlines or technology?

13. 🔥 In hindsight, should the console release have been delayed instead of launching without a functional clinch system, authentic inside fighting and a fully realized in-ring referee?

14. Did commercial deadlines influence the decision to release the game in its condition?

15. Would you support publishing a detailed development postmortem explaining what failed technically, creatively and managerially?

16. Which decision concerning Undisputed do you most regret?

III. The “Loud Vocal Minority” Claim

17. 🔥 What measurable data did SCI use to determine that people demanding changes were a “loud vocal minority”?

18. How many players were included in the data, and how were they divided among console, PC, online, offline, casual, competitive and simulation-oriented players?

19. Did SCI conduct statistically meaningful surveys, or were decisions primarily based on Discord, social media, content creators and gameplay telemetry?

20. Which specific community requests caused SCI to change the game toward one play style?

21. What was that play style, and which group did SCI believe it was serving?

22. 🔥 Are legitimate complaints about hit detection, punch tracking, missing boxing systems and shallow modes being grouped together with unreasonable demands and personal abuse?

23. Do you acknowledge that death threats are unacceptable but do not invalidate the reasonable criticism coming from ordinary paying customers?

24. How did SCI distinguish between feedback asking for boxing realism and feedback asking for easier ways to win online?

25. Why has SCI never commissioned an independent third-party survey asking players whether they want a simulation, hybrid or arcade-oriented boxing game?

26. 🔥 If SCI is confident that it understands what most players want, why not test that belief through an independently administered survey with publicly released results?

IV. What Kind of Game Is Undisputed 2?

27. Will Undisputed 2 be designed primarily as a realistic boxing simulation, a hybrid sports game or an arcade-oriented competitive game?

28. Will you clearly state that identity before preorders rather than relying on flexible terms such as “authentic”?

29. What does “authentic boxing” mean mechanically—not cosmetically or from a licensing perspective?

30. Will realism be the foundational ruleset, with hybrid and casual options available separately?

31. Will offline and online modes be allowed to use different balancing philosophies?

32. Will realistic boxer strengths remain powerful even when they create difficult matchups, or will every boxer be artificially balanced for competitive fairness?

33. 🔥 Boxing is inherently unequal. Why should Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Roy Jones Jr. and a limited club-level boxer be designed around comparable competitive viability?

34. Will SCI use clearly defined gameplay lanes—such as Sim, Hybrid and Casual—rather than forcing every customer into one compromise?

V. Missing and Underdeveloped Boxing Systems

35. Will Undisputed 2 have a complete clinch system at launch, including initiating, resisting, escaping, turning, holding, smothering and punching within the clinch?

36. Will it contain genuine inside fighting, or will close-range exchanges still be ordinary punches performed at reduced distance?

37. Will there be a fully functional in-ring referee who moves naturally, issues warnings, separates clinches, manages knockdowns, evaluates cuts and can stop fights intelligently?

38. Will the ropes and corners affect balance, defense, punch mechanics, movement and tactical positioning?

39. Will boxers be able to steer, walk down, turn, trap and maneuver opponents instead of merely following them around the ring?

40. How will SCI eliminate magnetic punches, inconsistent tracking, punches travelling through guards and punches missing without convincing physical reasons?

41. Will short punches, six-inch punches, compact hooks, inside uppercuts, shovel hooks, looping punches and awkward punches have distinct mechanics?

42. Will punch speed, leverage and power emerge from weight transfer, positioning, balance, fatigue and technique rather than mostly animation selection and attribute values?

43. Will blocking include realistic defensive variations such as catching, parrying, framing, cross-arm defense, shoulder rolls and active guard manipulation?

44. Will stamina connect to footwork, missed punches, clinching, muscular fatigue, body damage, recovery, pace and nervous energy?

45. Will damage create delayed reactions, deteriorating balance, reduced coordination, compromised defense and changing decision-making?

46. Will the repetitive get-up sequence be replaced by a system affected by consciousness, balance, injuries, recovery ability and referee judgment?

VI. Boxer Identity and Artificial Intelligence

47. How many meaningful tendencies, capabilities, traits, attributes and mannerisms will distinguish one boxer from another?

48. Will boxer identity extend beyond ratings, signature punch animations and movement speed?

49. Can AI boxers recognize range, scorecards, opponent weaknesses, fatigue, cuts, knockdowns and tactical momentum?

50. Will AI fighters formulate a game plan, abandon it when necessary and make adjustments between rounds?

51. Will pressure boxers apply intelligent pressure, counterpunchers create traps, movers control geography and inside boxers deliberately close distance?

52. Will created boxers have editable AI tendencies, punch preferences, defensive reactions, risk tolerance, pacing and tactical decision-making?

53. Will trainers and corners materially influence strategy, composure, recovery, tactical adjustments and boxer development?

54. 🔥 Can you promise that licensed boxers will no longer feel like variations of the same universal movement and combat template?

VII. Career Mode, Offline Play and Creation

55. 🔥 Why was the first game’s career mode released without the depth, atmosphere and interconnected boxing ecosystem many players expected?

56. What concrete commitments will SCI make before launch regarding career depth, offline play, creation tools, gameplay sliders, CPU-versus-CPU viewing, community testing and long-term support?

No-Holds-Barred Follow-Ups

These should be used whenever the answer becomes vague, promotional or evasive:

• “That explains the difficulty, but it does not answer who made the decision. Who approved it?”

• “What evidence supports that conclusion?”

• “How many players were represented in that data?”

• “Can you name the exact feature you are referring to?”

• “Was that known before the game was sold on consoles?”

• “Is that a confirmed launch feature or only an ambition?”

• “Will you put that commitment in writing?”

• “What happens if SCI fails to deliver it?”

• “Why should customers trust this promise after support for the first game ended?”

• “Are you willing to show uninterrupted gameplay rather than a controlled trailer?”

• “Will boxing experts and simulation players test it without company-selected content creators controlling the conversation?”

• “Can you answer that directly with yes or no before adding context?”

The Hardest Closing Question

Ash, SCI is asking the same boxing community that supported ESBC, purchased Undisputed and waited through years of development to trust the company again. What verifiable evidence, not promises, licenses, trailers or marketing language, will you provide before asking those customers to spend money on Undisputed 2?