A Great Create-A-Boxer System Could Carry the Next Boxing Videogame
EA, 2K, and Other Publishers May Be Looking at the Boxing Roster Problem Backward
I think the boxing videogame conversation has been stuck on the wrong question for far too long.
Every time somebody asks why EA has not returned to boxing, why 2K has never seriously entered boxing, or why another major publisher has not stepped forward, the conversation eventually circles back to the same explanation:
The boxers are too expensive.
Then people start talking about licensing.
How expensive this champion might be.
How difficult that legend might be to sign.
How there is no single players association covering the entire sport.
How promoters, managers, estates, individual boxers, and other parties can all be involved.
And suddenly the conclusion becomes:
That is why nobody wants to make a boxing videogame.
I do not buy that explanation as the complete answer.
More importantly, I think it causes people to overlook something much bigger.
A boxing videogame does not have to depend entirely on licensed boxers to carry the game.
If the actual game is exceptional, Create-A-Boxer could help carry the product.
Not the shallow Create-A-Boxer modes we have been conditioned to accept.
I mean an enormous creation system combined with outstanding graphics, realistic boxing mechanics, authentic animations, excellent presentation, intelligent CPU boxing, career depth, customization, community sharing, and enough tools for players to build almost any boxing world they can imagine.
That changes everything.
Stop Treating the Licensed Roster as the Game
Licensed boxers matter.
I want real boxers.
I want champions.
I want contenders.
I want prospects.
I want legends.
I want women boxers represented properly.
I want different eras of boxing.
I want boxers from around the world.
But somewhere along the way, sports gaming started treating the licensed athlete list as though it were the product itself.
It is not.
The boxing is the product.
The licensed roster is content operating inside that product.
There is a major difference.
Imagine a boxing videogame launches with 60, 70, or 80 licensed boxers.
Now imagine the game also gives me the ability to create hundreds or thousands of additional boxers with extraordinary visual accuracy and, more importantly, extraordinary boxing accuracy.
Suddenly that launch roster does not represent the boundaries of the game anymore.
It represents the beginning.
That is why Create-A-Boxer should not be sitting somewhere in a menu as a secondary feature.
For a modern boxing videogame, it could be one of the primary pillars of the entire design.
The Question Should Be: How Powerful Is Create-A-Boxer?
This is where I believe publishers need to change their thinking.
Suppose a major superstar wants an unreasonable licensing fee.
Okay.
Maybe you negotiate.
Maybe you eventually reach an agreement.
Maybe you add that boxer later.
Maybe the boxer becomes DLC.
Maybe the deal never happens.
That should not cripple the entire game.
Because if the creation suite is powerful enough, the boxing world continues functioning.
That requires something far beyond:
Choose head.
Choose hair.
Choose beard.
Choose trunks.
Select stance.
Allocate attribute points.
Finished.
That is not enough anymore.
A true next-generation Create-A-Boxer system should allow us to construct the visual identity, physical identity, technical identity, tactical identity, behavioral identity, and career identity of a boxer.
Now we are talking about a system capable of carrying a boxing game.
I Should Be Able to Create a Boxer, Not Just a Character Model
There is an enormous difference.
Creating someone who visually resembles a boxer is only the first layer.
The boxer must actually box like that boxer.
Give us facial sculpting deep enough to control:
skull shape
forehead
brow structure
eye depth
eye spacing
nose structure
cheekbones
jaw
chin
ears
lips
facial asymmetry
scars
swelling tendencies
skin details
aging
facial hair
hairstyles
hairline
body hair
tattoos
birthmarks
complexion
damage history
Then give us serious body creation.
Not three generic body presets.
Let us control:
height
reach
shoulder width
torso length
arm length
forearm length
hand size
neck size
chest
back
waist
hips
thighs
calves
body-fat distribution
muscularity
leg-to-torso ratio
wingspan
posture
natural stance width
center of gravity
A 5-foot-8 boxer with a 74-inch reach should not simply be a scaled model.
A 6-foot-6 heavyweight with unusually long arms should not move as though somebody stretched a middleweight character vertically.
Body geometry should affect boxing.
That is where creation becomes part of gameplay instead of cosmetics.
Let Me Create How My Boxer Actually Boxes
This is where the system becomes revolutionary.
Create-A-Boxer should let players build a boxing identity from the ground up.
Give us Create-A-Stance.
Give us Create-A-Guard.
Give us Create-A-Defense.
Give us Create-A-Footwork Style.
Give us Create-A-Punch Style.
Give us Create-A-Combination Library.
Give us Create-A-Inside Style.
Give us Create-A-Clinching Style.
Give us Create-A-Counterpunching Profile.
Give us Create-A-Boxing Personality.
The boxer should not simply have an orthodox or southpaw label.
Let us determine how high the hands sit.
How wide the elbows are.
How much the chin is tucked.
How squared or bladed the torso becomes.
Whether the lead hand floats.
Whether the rear hand stays glued to the cheek.
Whether the boxer frequently switches guard positions.
Whether the boxer keeps the lead hand extended.
Whether the boxer carries both hands low.
Whether the boxer changes posture when entering the pocket.
That is boxer creation.
Let Me Create Punches
Why should every created boxer share the same jab animation?
One boxer snaps the jab.
Another paws with it.
Another shoots it from the waist.
Another steps hard behind it.
Another doubles it rapidly.
Another uses it almost like a range finder.
Another throws a stiff jab designed to disrupt posture.
Another primarily jabs to the chest.
Another varies speed.
The same applies to:
straight rights
crosses
lead hooks
rear hooks
shovel hooks
check hooks
looping rights
overhands
uppercuts
body hooks
body straights
double jabs
triple jabs
combination entries
punches while retreating
punches during pivots
Now combine animation options with timing, velocity, body mechanics, weight transfer, trajectory, range, recovery, accuracy, and tactical preference.
Suddenly two created boxers can have completely different boxing identities even if their numerical attributes are similar.
That is how a creation system carries a sports game.
The CPU Has to Understand Everything We Create
This part is critical.
Creation cannot exist only for human-controlled boxers.
If I create 300 boxers for my universe, the CPU needs to understand what I created.
If Boxer A is a patient counterpuncher, the CPU should box patiently.
If Boxer B applies constant pressure but attacks intelligently, the CPU should pressure intelligently.
If Boxer C is dangerous on the inside, the CPU should work toward inside positions.
If Boxer D prefers distance, the CPU should protect distance.
If Boxer E attacks the body when opponents shell up, the CPU should recognize the shell and change targets.
If Boxer F becomes desperate while losing rounds, that behavioral change should emerge.
If Boxer G protects a lead late, the CPU should know the score and box accordingly.
If Boxer H has tremendous power but poor endurance, the CPU should understand that risk.
This is how created boxers become actual members of the boxing universe rather than decorative substitutes.
This Is Why Licensing Does Not Have to Carry Everything
This is the part of the argument I wanted to emphasize from the beginning.
Licensing should complement the game.
Licensing should not have to carry the game.
There is a difference.
If I have incredible gameplay, incredible presentation, incredible creation tools, an enormous career system, excellent CPU behavior, and strong community sharing, I do not need 300 licensed boxers on Day One to justify buying the game.
Give me an excellent foundation.
Then grow the licensed roster.
That is a much more sustainable concept.
And my own experience is part of why I question how casually people repeat the licensing argument.
What I Saw With Round4Round
I worked with the now-defunct indie boxing videogame project Round4Round Boxing.
We were not EA.
We were not 2K.
We were not backed by one of the largest publishers in gaming.
Yet the project managed to get agreements involving more than one hundred boxers, including legends, men, and women.
That experience matters to my perspective.
It did not feel like some impossible mystery where nobody in boxing could be approached unless millions upon millions of dollars were placed on the table.
Different arrangements could be discussed.
Different boxers had different circumstances.
And one of the possibilities was that boxers could benefit financially through DLC.
That is important.
Because everybody seems to discuss boxer licensing as though every single boxer must receive some enormous guaranteed check before the videogame can exist.
Why?
There are other structures.
A boxer can receive compensation tied partially to downloadable content.
A boxer can be added after launch.
A group of legends can be sold as an optional expansion.
A younger boxer can gain exposure by being included.
An established boxer can command a different arrangement.
The biggest names can be treated as premium licenses.
There is no law saying every contract must look identical.
I am not saying licensing costs nothing.
I am saying the repeated claim that boxer licensing itself makes a major boxing videogame nearly impossible does not match what I personally witnessed while working around an independent project.
And even if certain superstar licenses become expensive, that still does not destroy the game if the game has an elite creation system.
That is the larger point.
Create-A-Boxer Is the Insurance Policy
Think about it from a development standpoint.
A deep Create-A-Boxer system protects the game from roster limitations.
A licensing deal falls apart?
The game survives.
A boxer retires?
The game survives.
A new champion emerges after launch?
The game survives.
A prospect suddenly becomes popular?
The game survives.
A retired legend cannot be secured?
The game survives.
A player wants to recreate an obscure boxer from 1974?
The game can support it.
Someone wants an entirely fictional universe?
The game can support it.
Someone wants a roster made entirely of women boxers?
The game can support it.
Someone wants to create 300 prospects and simulate the next twenty years of boxing?
The game can support it.
That is enormous value.
But Create-A-Boxer Cannot Carry a Bad Boxing Game
There is an important condition attached to everything I am saying.
The underlying boxing must be excellent.
A gigantic creation suite cannot rescue bad boxing mechanics.
You cannot give me unlimited creation slots and then have everyone move the same.
You cannot give me face sculpting and then have punches slide through guards.
You cannot let me create Muhammad Ali's appearance but provide no way to reproduce his movement philosophy.
You cannot let me build Mike Tyson visually while giving me generic inside-boxing mechanics.
You cannot create defensive specialists if every guard inevitably breaks down the same way.
You cannot create great counterpunchers if the game does not understand timing.
You cannot create body punchers if body punching has no meaningful geometry.
You cannot create rope specialists if rope interactions barely exist.
That is why graphics, mechanics, animation, AI, physics, and presentation have to support creation.
The pieces are connected.
Graphics Matter More When Creation Is Central
If you expect Create-A-Boxer to carry part of the roster burden, the visual technology needs to be exceptional.
Players need to look at a community-created boxer and think:
That looks like a professionally built character.
Not:
That obviously came from Create-A-Boxer.
The visual gap between licensed boxers and created boxers should become extremely small.
That means better:
skin rendering
hair
facial geometry
body sculpting
cloth simulation
sweat
bruising
swelling
cuts
muscle deformation
lighting
facial animation
age representation
tattoos
equipment fitting
If community-created boxers look convincing during introductions, weigh-ins, broadcasts, corners, knockdowns, and post-bout sequences, the roster can become almost limitless.
Animation Matters Even More Than Graphics
A boxer can look perfect in a screenshot and still feel completely wrong once the bell rings.
That is why animation diversity is essential.
Created boxers need access to enormous animation libraries.
Not one generic animation package.
Give us variations for:
walking
bouncing
stalking
retreating
circling
pivoting
entering range
leaving range
slipping
rolling
blocking
parrying
catching
clinching
breaking from clinches
inside positioning
resetting
showing fatigue
being hurt
recovering
celebrating
sitting in the corner
entering the ring
Then allow those animation families to blend procedurally according to the boxer we created.
That is when creation begins generating genuine individuality.
Presentation Can Make Fictional Boxers Feel Real
This is another part of the equation that gets underestimated.
Presentation matters enormously.
If I create a boxer named Marcus "Night Train" Bell from Newark, New Jersey, the game should treat him like he belongs in that world.
The ring announcer should say his name if the name system supports it.
Commentators should discuss his record.
They should mention his hometown.
His gym.
His previous bouts.
His winning streak.
His losses.
His championship history.
His rivalries.
His age.
His move up in weight.
His amateur background.
The broadcast should display professional graphics.
Records should update.
Career accomplishments should follow him.
Crowd reactions should change as he becomes popular.
His entrance should evolve.
If he becomes a champion, the presentation surrounding him should change.
Now a created boxer no longer feels like something I inserted into the game.
He feels like a boxer who exists inside the game's boxing world.
That distinction is crucial.
The Creation Suite Should Go Far Beyond Create-A-Boxer
And if publishers really want to increase longevity, do not stop with boxers.
Give us a complete boxing creation ecosystem.
Create-A-Trainer
Create coaching philosophies, strengths, weaknesses, corner behavior, personalities, relationships, and teaching specialties.
Create-A-Gym
Choose location, equipment, atmosphere, reputation, training specialties, staff, sparring pools, and gym culture.
Create-A-Promotion
Build a promotional company, sign boxers, organize cards, develop prospects, negotiate opportunities, and compete with CPU-controlled promotions.
Create-A-Organization
Build fictional sanctioning bodies, ranking structures, titles, mandatory rules, and championship policies.
Create-A-Belt
Design championship belts with custom plates, straps, logos, colors, text, and division rules.
Create-An-Arena
Small gym.
Ballroom.
Casino.
Convention center.
Outdoor venue.
Massive stadium.
Historical hall.
Create-A-Broadcast
Create overlays.
Scorecards.
Tale-of-the-tape presentations.
Camera packages.
Replay styles.
Commentary teams.
Graphics.
Logos.
Introductions.
Create-A-Boxing Style
This could become one of the most important systems of all.
Let players author reusable boxing identities and apply them to new boxers.
Now imagine what the community would build.
That is not a basic sports game anymore.
That is a boxing construction kit.
Community Sharing Could Make the Roster Explode
This is where the idea becomes even more powerful.
Allow players to share creations.
A great creator spends hours making a highly detailed boxer.
Another player downloads him in seconds.
Someone builds an entire 1980s heavyweight roster.
Another person builds 1990s middleweights.
Someone recreates regional prospects.
Someone builds an original women's boxing universe.
Someone creates fictional promotions.
Someone recreates a legendary gym.
Someone builds a completely original 500-boxer universe.
Now imagine sorting community creations by:
era
weight class
country
gender
popularity
rating
downloads
realism
historical
fictional
career-ready
visual accuracy
Suddenly the official roster is only one layer of the game.
That is how Create-A-Boxer can carry a boxing videogame.
SCI Proved Something Important, But Not What Some People Think
Steel City Interactive proved there is demand.
Undisputed surpassed one million copies sold shortly after its full launch. (Game Developer)
That matters.
But I do not look at Undisputed and say:
"See, just copy that."
No.
Its execution was way off in important areas compared with what I believe a true boxing simulation can become.
For me, that is precisely why the situation should interest other publishers.
People showed up even though the product did not fully deliver the depth some of us expected from a modern boxing simulation.
That should make EA, 2K, and other companies curious.
What happens if someone combines that proven demand with:
better boxing mechanics,
deeper defense,
better inside boxing,
true clinching,
more individualized movement,
better CPU boxing,
more authentic fatigue,
better footwork,
deeper career systems,
better presentation,
and a creation suite dramatically beyond what we have previously received?
That question has not been answered.
And Then There Is the Strange Silence Around Dimps
There is another boxing project that should be part of this conversation.
In May 2025, Dimps officially announced a collaboration with The Ring to develop a new boxing videogame. The announcement is particularly interesting because Dimps described the project as using original characters, rather than building the concept entirely around a roster of licensed real-world boxers. (Dimps)
That immediately caught my attention.
Because it touches the exact argument I am making here.
A boxing videogame can be constructed around something other than the assumption that licensed stars must carry the entire product.
But then comes the frustrating part.
As of August 24, 2026, Dimps' official English news page still lists the May 13, 2025 boxing announcement, while its subsequent news items cover other projects and company updates. I have not found a newer boxing-specific announcement there. (Dimps)
That is more than a year of public silence from the original announcement.
What is happening with it?
What kind of boxing game is it?
How deep is the creation system?
Are those original boxers fixed characters?
Can we create our own?
How realistic is the boxing?
What does the movement system look like?
What does defense look like?
What kind of career structure does it have?
Is it simulation?
Hybrid?
Arcade?
Something else entirely?
We still do not know enough.
And this silence is another example of why boxing videogame fans constantly feel as though they are left standing outside the door waiting for somebody to tell us what is actually happening.
Dimps Could Accidentally Prove the Entire Point
The Dimps project has an opportunity I hope it understands.
If you are already creating a boxing videogame centered on original boxers, then you need to make the boxing systems themselves carry enormous weight.
You cannot lean on:
Muhammad Ali.
Mike Tyson.
Canelo Alvarez.
Terence Crawford.
Naoya Inoue.
Claressa Shields.
Katie Taylor.
Or another famous name to automatically create interest in every bout.
The original boxer has to become interesting because of:
appearance,
personality,
style,
movement,
record,
career history,
abilities,
weaknesses,
rivalries,
presentation,
and what actually happens inside the ring.
That could be fascinating.
And if the game also has an extraordinary creation suite, then an original-character boxing project could demonstrate something major:
Real boxers are valuable, but they are not the only way to build value in a boxing videogame.
The concern is that we know too little about the Dimps project to know whether that is where it is headed.
That silence needs to end eventually.
Imagine a Boxing Game Where the Community Builds the Missing Generations
This is what I think publishers have not fully appreciated.
Suppose the official game launches with 80 licensed boxers.
But the creation suite is so advanced that within six months the community has produced:
5,000 believable boxers.
Different eras.
Different countries.
Different divisions.
Different styles.
Different gyms.
Different promoters.
Different organizations.
Different universes.
Now the game is no longer dependent on one static roster.
A missing boxer does not mean a missing matchup.
A new prospect appearing in real boxing does not require waiting nine months for the developer.
A player can build him.
And when the official version eventually arrives through DLC, people can choose the licensed version.
This is not an argument against licensing.
It is an argument for reducing the entire game's dependence on licensing.
Then Licensed DLC Becomes an Expansion Instead of a Rescue Mission
That is where DLC makes much more sense.
The base game is already strong.
Creation already carries enormous value.
Then licensed boxer DLC expands it.
Now DLC becomes:
"Here is another professionally scanned and officially licensed boxer with unique commentary, animations, attire, career data, and presentation."
That has value.
A percentage of the economics can also help compensate the boxer depending on the agreement.
This is exactly why my Round4Round experience matters to my skepticism about the constant licensing excuse.
There are multiple ways to structure a roster.
There are multiple ways to compensate boxers.
And there are multiple ways to make the game valuable without needing every major name before launch.
Why Aren't EA or 2K Even Asking?
This brings me back to one of the questions that bothers me the most.
Why not conduct a survey?
Seriously.
What is the risk in asking?
Not:
"Do you want Fight Night back?"
Go deeper.
Ask:
Would you buy a boxing videogame with 60 licensed boxers and an extremely deep creation system?
What about 40 licensed boxers?
80?
100?
Would you accept fewer licensed boxers if the gameplay were substantially more realistic?
Would you accept fewer legends if you could accurately create and share boxers?
How important is visual creation?
How important is style creation?
How important is career depth?
How important is CPU-vs-CPU?
How important is offline play?
How important are community downloads?
How important are historical rules?
How important is presentation?
How important are women boxers?
How important is amateur boxing?
How important are gyms and trainers?
Would you purchase officially licensed boxer DLC?
Would you build fictional boxing universes?
Would you recreate historical eras?
Would you play a game containing both real and created boxers?
These questions directly address the supposed licensing problem.
So ask them.
Maybe the Industry Would Discover Something It Has Been Overlooking
Maybe players do not need 200 licensed boxers on launch day.
Maybe they need 70 excellent ones and extraordinary creation tools.
Maybe they would rather have 80 boxers who actually behave differently than 200 who feel interchangeable.
Maybe they would rather have an advanced boxing engine than another enormous roster list.
Maybe they would rather create missing legends themselves than watch half the development budget disappear trying to secure every famous name.
Maybe they want both real and fictional boxing.
Maybe they want the ability to build entire generations.
But the companies have to actually ask.
Build the Boxing First
That is the sentence I keep coming back to.
Build the boxing first.
Build great footwork.
Build realistic range.
Build weight transfer.
Build balance.
Build believable punches.
Build defensive layers.
Build guard positioning.
Build slips.
Build rolls.
Build parries.
Build catches.
Build inside boxing.
Build clinching.
Build rope interaction.
Build corner behavior.
Build intelligent referees.
Build judging.
Build stamina.
Build damage.
Build injuries.
Build adaptive CPU behavior.
Build excellent physics.
Build authentic animation.
Build broadcasts.
Build career depth.
Build a living universe.
And then put one of the deepest creation systems ever made in a sports videogame on top of it.
Now you have something that can survive whether Boxer X signs a licensing agreement or not.
A Great Boxing Game Should Create Its Own Stars Too
This part could be revolutionary.
Imagine starting career mode and meeting a completely fictional CPU-generated prospect.
You have never heard of him because he does not exist in the real world.
But he is 19 years old.
6-foot-3.
Long reach.
Excellent jab.
Poor inside defense.
Unusually calm temperament.
Fast learner.
Regional amateur champion.
Starts his professional career 8-0.
Becomes 17-0.
Knocks out a contender.
Wins a championship.
Defends it seven times.
Eventually meets your created boxer.
By then, you know who he is.
The game created a star.
That is what a living sports universe can do.
You no longer need every bit of drama imported from reality.
The simulation generates its own history.
Its own champions.
Its own upsets.
Its own legends.
Its own rivalries.
Its own eras.
Now imagine combining those generated careers with real licensed boxers and community creations.
That could provide decades of gameplay.
This Is the Boxing Game I Think Publishers Are Missing
The future of boxing videogames should not be:
Who licensed the biggest roster?
It should be:
Who built the deepest boxing world?
That is a far more interesting competition.
EA could enter.
2K could enter.
SCI could dramatically expand its approach.
Dimps could surprise everybody.
Another studio could emerge.
But somebody needs to understand that the answer is not necessarily throwing enormous amounts of money at every recognizable boxer and hoping the names carry an average game.
Do the opposite.
Build an extraordinary game.
Build technology capable of making every boxer feel different.
Build creation powerful enough to generate thousands more.
Then pursue licenses strategically.
That Is Why the "Boxers Are Too Expensive" Excuse Does Not End the Conversation
Some boxers may be expensive.
Some may not.
Some deals may be difficult.
Others may be surprisingly achievable.
My experience with Round4Round showed me that a small independent project could secure agreements involving more than one hundred boxers, including legends, men, and women.
SCI showed that the audience for boxing videogames is still there. Undisputed crossed the one-million-sales mark despite being the first major boxing release in years. (Game Developer)
Dimps and The Ring have gone in another direction entirely by announcing a project built around original characters, although the lack of a substantive public boxing update since May 2025 leaves major questions unanswered. (Dimps)
Put those things together and I see something very different from:
"Boxing videogames are too difficult because boxers cost too much."
I see an industry that has not fully explored the alternatives.
Create-A-Boxer Could Carry the Game
That is my point.
Not because real boxers do not matter.
They do.
Not because licenses are unnecessary.
They are valuable.
Not because every boxer will accept a small deal.
They will not.
But because the success of a boxing videogame should not live or die according to whether every famous boxer agrees to appear.
Give me world-class graphics.
Give me realistic mechanics.
Give me hundreds of meaningful boxer tendencies and capabilities.
Give me individualized animations.
Give me authentic physics.
Give me intelligent CPU boxing.
Give me presentation worthy of a championship broadcast.
Give me a massive career universe.
Give me deep offline options.
Give me sharing.
And then give me a Create-A-Boxer system powerful enough that I can create almost anybody or invent somebody completely new and have the game treat that boxer as though the developers built him themselves.
Now we have something different.
Now a 70-boxer licensed roster can become a world containing 700.
Then 7,000.
Now DLC can expand the official roster rather than rescue an empty game.
Now licensing is part of the strategy rather than the entire strategy.
Now missing boxers are inconveniences rather than fatal weaknesses.
Now the community becomes part of the game's longevity.
And now EA, 2K, SCI, Dimps, or whoever else wants to make a boxing videogame has a much bigger opportunity than merely building another roster.
They can build a boxing platform.
That is why I want these companies to stop asking themselves whether they can afford every boxer in boxing.
Ask something more ambitious:
Can we build a boxing videogame so deep that the sport can continue growing inside it whether every boxer signs or not?
If the answer is yes, then the old licensing excuse becomes a lot less convincing.
And if the companies still do not know whether sports gamers would support something like that?
There is an extremely simple place to begin.
Put out the poll.
Run the survey.
And finally ask boxing videogame fans what kind of game we would actually buy.
No comments:
Post a Comment