“They Already Know What We Want” Is Not a Substitute for Consumer Research

 

Investigative Blog: “They Already Know What We Want” Is Not a Substitute for Consumer Research

The Boxing Videogame Industry Has Had Decades of Feedback. So Why Are Fans Still Being Told That Surveys Are Unnecessary?

By Poe | The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog

One of the most troubling arguments circulating among boxing videogame fans is that an independent consumer survey is unnecessary because companies already know what their customers want.

“They know what we want.”

“They read the Discord discussions.”

“They collect feedback from the forums.”

“Fans have been telling them what they want for years.”

These statements are not entirely wrong. Boxing videogame companies have had access to decades of consumer feedback, community discussions, feature requests, wishlists, and constructive criticism. The community has repeatedly explained what it wants from realistic boxing gameplay, boxer individuality, career modes, customization, offline experiences, and the preservation of authentic boxing characteristics.

But that raises a much more important question:

If companies have spent decades hearing what consumers want, why are fans still arguing over whether their preferences are being understood, measured, or meaningfully represented in the products being developed?

The existence of feedback does not prove that feedback is being interpreted correctly. Collecting suggestions does not establish which features matter most to consumers. Reading forum discussions does not automatically reveal the preferences of the wider market.

And knowing what some fans want is not the same as understanding what the market wants.

1. Three Decades of Suggestions Should Have Produced More Than Familiar Arguments

Boxing videogame enthusiasts have spent decades sharing ideas about what they want to experience in the ring. From the Knockout Kings and Fight Night communities to modern boxing videogame forums, the conversations have repeatedly addressed realism, boxer authenticity, fighting styles, career depth, customization, and the distinction between arcade-oriented gameplay and realistic boxing.

These are not entirely new discussions. Many of today's requests are extensions of ideas that have been discussed for years.

The industry has had opportunities to observe these conversations, collect feedback, and learn from previous releases. Publishers and developers can also draw on internal playtesting, sales figures, player behavior, customer support, and other forms of research.

Yet the argument that companies already know what fans want is frequently used to dismiss the idea of conducting an independent survey.

That position deserves scrutiny.

If the industry has already gathered so much information, why should consumers oppose an effort to examine those preferences systematically? Why should a survey be treated as redundant when it could help establish how widely particular opinions are shared, which features consumers prioritize, and where different groups disagree?

A survey is not an attempt to erase the industry's history. It is an opportunity to examine whether the lessons supposedly learned from that history align with what consumers actually want today.

2. Discord and Forums Are Sources of Feedback, Not Automatically Representative Market Research

There is a fundamental difference between collecting community comments and conducting structured consumer research.

Discord servers and online forums can be valuable sources of feedback. They allow developers to interact with dedicated players, identify recurring complaints, discover potential features, and observe how people respond to announcements.

However, these environments have limitations.

Their participants are self-selected. Some users post frequently, while others read discussions without contributing. Some players participate in multiple communities, and others never join a game's Discord server or visit its official forums.

A highly active community member can therefore appear to represent a much larger audience than that person's actual participation justifies.

There is also the question of who feels comfortable speaking.

Do offline players receive the same attention as competitive online players? Are people who prefer realistic boxing gameplay heard as consistently as those who prefer faster, more arcade-oriented experiences? What about consumers who want both, provided the experiences are offered as distinct options?

What about former customers who stopped buying boxing videogames because previous releases failed to meet their expectations?

The people who remain active in a game's community are not necessarily representative of everyone who might purchase a boxing videogame.

That distinction matters.

If a company primarily listens to the most visible participants in its own community, it risks mistaking community activity for market-wide demand. That does not mean those participants are wrong or their feedback is unimportant. It means their feedback should be evaluated alongside other evidence.

A properly designed independent survey can help investigate what those other consumers think.

3. SCI and ESBC: When Early Promise Meets the Reality of Product Development

Steel City Interactive's early presentation of eSports Boxing Club, commonly known as ESBC, generated considerable enthusiasm among boxing videogame fans.

The project's early vision featured an emphasis on authentic boxing presentation, recognizable boxers, realistic-looking exchanges, and a broader boxing experience that many enthusiasts had been waiting to see.

For fans who had spent years asking for a more authentic boxing videogame, ESBC represented the possibility that a developer was paying attention to longstanding community expectations.

That enthusiasm matters because it demonstrates how strongly an ambitious boxing videogame concept can resonate with its intended audience.

However, there is an important distinction between presenting a vision that appeals to consumers and consistently delivering a finished product that fulfills that vision.

As ESBC evolved into Undisputed, the conversation shifted from anticipation to questions about the final product, its gameplay direction, feature implementation, and the relationship between its original promise and its eventual release.

Critics have raised concerns about whether the experience adequately delivers the realistic boxing mechanics, authentic individual boxer behavior, and depth that some fans expected.

The existence of these criticisms does not, by itself, establish that corporate greed caused every disputed design decision. That conclusion would require evidence about the company's internal decisions, financial incentives, and development priorities.

Nevertheless, the broader question is legitimate:

What happens when a project initially earns consumer trust by promising an experience that its most invested supporters believe the finished product has not fully delivered?

That is where the conversation about consumer research becomes especially important.

A company may understand that fans want authenticity. It may recognize that realistic boxing gameplay is an important selling point. It may even produce early demonstrations that generate considerable excitement.

But understanding a desired outcome is only one part of development. The company must also decide how to prioritize features, allocate resources, define its target audience, evaluate commercial opportunities, and determine which compromises it is willing to make.

Those decisions can change the experience consumers ultimately receive.

4. The Corporate Mindset Can Change What Happens to Consumer Feedback

When fans say, “They already know what we want,” they often treat knowledge as though it guarantees action.

It does not.

A development team can understand that some customers want deeper offline modes and still prioritize online engagement. A publisher can recognize demand for extensive customization while deciding that a different feature offers a more attractive commercial opportunity. A company can know that consumers disagree about gameplay direction and still choose one approach rather than provide separate experiences.

These decisions may be influenced by budgets, staffing, deadlines, technical constraints, commercial strategy, management priorities, or assumptions about the market.

Financial incentives can also influence decisions about downloadable content, recurring monetization, and long-term player engagement. But identifying a financial incentive is not sufficient to prove that greed explains a particular outcome.

The critical issue is that consumer feedback competes with other priorities inside a business.

That is precisely why it is insufficient to argue that a company has heard the community.

The real questions are these:

• Which suggestions were considered?

• Which consumer groups were represented?

• Which features were prioritized, and why?

• What evidence supported the decisions?

• Were competing preferences evaluated fairly?

• Were rejected suggestions dismissed because of legitimate constraints, or because decision-makers assumed they understood the market without adequately testing those assumptions?

Without answers to these questions, consumers cannot reliably distinguish between a company that listened carefully and one that selectively heard what supported its existing plans.

5. Knowing What Fans Want Does Not Mean Every Fan Wants the Same Thing

Another weakness in the “they already know” argument is the assumption that the boxing videogame audience has one unified set of preferences.

It does not.

Some consumers prioritize realistic boxing mechanics. Others prefer a more accessible, arcade-oriented experience. Some want a hybrid approach. Many have preferences that overlap, but they may disagree about how those preferences should be implemented.

There are also meaningful differences between consumers who primarily play offline, those who compete online, those who enjoy career progression, and those who want to create and manage boxers, gyms, or entire boxing worlds.

The industry does not necessarily need to force every one of these audiences into a single gameplay philosophy.

One alternative is to investigate whether distinct gameplay options could better serve these groups. A realistic or sim-oriented experience could preserve authentic boxing mechanics, while optional Hybrid or Arcade modes could accommodate players who prefer different levels of accessibility and action.

The viability of that approach should be evaluated through design research, technical assessment, and consumer testing rather than dismissed through assumptions.

The same principle applies to offline and online experiences. Their requirements may overlap, but one should not automatically be designed around the needs of the other when meaningful separation is technically and commercially feasible.

A survey cannot prove that every requested feature will succeed. It can help establish whether the demand is substantial enough to warrant further investigation.

That is a far more productive use of consumer feedback than treating the loudest voices as the final authority.

6. Why an Independent Survey Is Different

The proposed survey is not based on the assumption that developers have never listened to fans. Nor is it an attempt to replace professional game development with a popularity contest.

Its purpose is to examine consumer preferences through a more structured process, independent of any single developer's community channels.

An independently administered survey can ask participants about their actual priorities, including subjects that may receive inconsistent attention in ordinary community discussions.

For example:

• How important is realistic boxing gameplay compared with accessibility and arcade-style action?

• Should consumers have distinct gameplay options rather than one forced compromise?

• How important are offline modes, career depth, boxer individuality, and customization?

• Should offline customers receive the same consideration as online-focused customers?

• Which features would influence a purchasing decision rather than simply sound appealing?

• What shortcomings have caused consumers to lose interest in existing boxing videogames?

• What would persuade former customers to return?

The survey can also distinguish between general enthusiasm and purchasing intent. Someone may support a feature in principle without considering it essential enough to influence a purchase.

Likewise, a participant may demand a long list of features while having no intention of purchasing the product at its proposed price.

These distinctions matter when companies are making commercial decisions.

For meaningful results, the survey should disclose its methodology, recruit beyond a single developer's community, avoid leading questions, allow respondents to express disagreement, and publish its findings transparently. Its limitations and the characteristics of its respondents should be acknowledged.

An independent survey is not automatically representative simply because it is independent. Its credibility depends on how it is designed, distributed, analyzed, and reported.

The objective is not to manufacture a result that confirms what a particular group already believes.

The objective is to let the data speak, including when the results challenge our own assumptions.

7. If Companies Already Know, They Should Have No Reason to Fear Better Evidence

There is a question worth putting directly to the industry.

If developers and publishers already possess a reliable understanding of what boxing videogame consumers want, an independent survey could provide an opportunity to compare that understanding with external findings.

If the results align with their existing research, that alignment would offer additional support for their conclusions.

If the results differ, the discrepancy could identify audiences, expectations, or purchasing priorities that deserve further investigation.

Neither outcome requires a company to surrender its creative authority.

Developers remain responsible for deciding what can be built, what fits their vision, and what their resources can support. Consumers are not entitled to dictate every development decision, and a survey does not eliminate the need for professional judgment.

But professional judgment should not become an excuse for treating assumptions as established facts.

There is a difference between saying, “We considered the evidence and made this decision,” and saying, “We already know what the community wants, so there is no need to examine the question.”

The first statement invites scrutiny of the reasoning. The second closes the conversation before the evidence has been independently evaluated.

If companies have confidence in their understanding of the market, transparent consumer research should be an opportunity, not a threat.

8. The Real Issue Is Not Whether Companies Have Heard Us. It Is What They Have Done With What They Heard.

Boxing videogame fans have spent decades making suggestions, sharing wishlists, discussing shortcomings, and explaining what they want from the genre.

The industry has had ample opportunity to learn from those conversations.

But the continued existence of familiar disagreements raises questions about how feedback is collected, interpreted, prioritized, and translated into product decisions.

ESBC demonstrated the enthusiasm that can emerge when a project appears aligned with longstanding consumer expectations. The subsequent evolution into Undisputed also illustrates why early enthusiasm and a compelling development vision cannot substitute for evaluating the finished product against those expectations.

The lesson should not be that every developer is dishonest, that every commercial decision is motivated by greed, or that a vocal group of fans always represents the market.

The lesson is that hearing feedback, understanding demand, and acting on evidence are three different things.

Companies can collect thousands of comments and still misunderstand the relative importance of competing preferences. They can recognize demand for authenticity while making decisions that disappoint consumers who value it. They can engage extensively with one community while overlooking potential customers who are no longer participating.

An independent survey offers a way to investigate those gaps.

Rejecting that effort because companies supposedly already know everything raises a question of its own: Why should consumers be discouraged from gathering better evidence about the products they have supported for decades?

The Final Question: Who Benefits When We Stop Asking Questions?

When fans dismiss consumer research with “they already know what we want,” they may believe they are defending the community's history of speaking up.

But that argument can unintentionally undermine the very people whose voices it claims to protect.

Decades of feedback should be a reason to investigate what consumers have been saying, not a reason to stop asking questions.

Discord discussions have value. Forums have value. Wishlists have value. Direct developer engagement has value. Independent research can add another layer of evidence to all of them.

No single source should be treated as infallible.

The boxing videogame industry does not need consumers to stop sharing ideas. It needs a better understanding of how those ideas translate into expectations, purchasing decisions, and different definitions of an enjoyable boxing experience.

And consumers should not have to accept the assumption that a company knows what is best for them simply because it has spent years collecting their feedback.

The question is not whether companies have heard us. The question is whether their decisions reflect a sufficiently accurate understanding of what we have been telling them.

That is why the survey matters.

Not because we assume the industry knows nothing, but because we refuse to assume that years of collecting feedback automatically mean it knows enough.

Realism Sells. Fun for who? Stop thinking for us. #LetTheDataSpeak

---

A message to boxing videogame fans

Before dismissing an independent survey, ask yourself what is actually being opposed.

Is it the idea of collecting consumer feedback, or the possibility of discovering that the most visible community voices do not fully represent the wider audience?

A credible survey does not promise that every request will be implemented. It provides an opportunity to document consumer preferences, identify disagreements, and give companies additional evidence when making decisions.

If the industry's understanding of its audience is already accurate, the findings should help demonstrate that.

If it is incomplete, consumers deserve an opportunity to find out.

We have spent decades telling the industry what we want. It is time to examine what the evidence says.