Why Boxers Should Think Twice Before Signing Exclusive Boxing Videogame Contracts
How Nonexclusive Licensing Could Benefit Boxers, Developers, Boxing Fans, and the Entire Industry
Poe & The Community Speaks...
Why Should One Company Control a Boxer's Videogame Legacy?
Boxing is a sport built on competition. Boxers compete for championships, rankings, recognition, financial opportunities, and their places in history. Promoters compete to stage major events. Networks compete for broadcasting rights, and manufacturers compete for endorsement agreements.
Yet when it comes to boxing videogames, exclusive licensing agreements can create an entirely different situation.
Instead of competing solely to produce the best representation of boxing, developers and publishers can compete to prevent their competitors from featuring particular boxers.
That distinction is important.
Why should one videogame company be able to control whether fans can play as Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Sugar Ray Robinson, or other legendary and contemporary boxers?
More importantly, why should a boxer restrict their earning potential to one videogame company when multiple developers might be willing to pay for the opportunity to feature them?
I believe nonexclusive licensing agreements should become the preferred business model for professional boxers, retired champions, historical legends, and their estates.
There will always be circumstances in which a substantial exclusive agreement makes financial sense. However, exclusivity should not automatically be considered the best option simply because a major publisher is offering it.
Nonexclusive licensing could generate more income for boxers, lower licensing expenses for developers, expand videogame rosters, create opportunities for smaller studios, and allow fans to experience their favorite boxers in different games.
It could also encourage the kind of competition the boxing videogame industry desperately needs.
1. Nonexclusive Licensing Could Actually Make Boxers More Money
One of the biggest misconceptions about videogame licensing is the idea that an exclusive agreement must be more profitable because one company is paying to secure a boxer's likeness.
That is not necessarily true.
A boxer who signs a nonexclusive agreement retains the opportunity to negotiate with several developers instead of relying on one publisher.
Imagine a boxer receiving a $200,000 offer for an exclusive videogame licensing agreement.
That might sound attractive, especially if the boxer is retired or no longer earning substantial income from professional boxing.
But what if four videogame companies would each be willing to pay $75,000 for a nonexclusive agreement?
The boxer could earn $300,000 instead of $200,000.
That represents an additional $100,000 while allowing multiple companies to feature the same boxer.
Here is a hypothetical comparison:
| Licensing arrangement | Payment per developer | Total earnings |
|---|---|---|
| One exclusive agreement | $200,000 | $200,000 |
| Two nonexclusive agreements | $125,000 | $250,000 |
| Four nonexclusive agreements | $75,000 | $300,000 |
| Six nonexclusive agreements | $60,000 | $360,000 |
These figures are illustrative, not actual licensing quotes. They assume every agreement is successfully negotiated and do not include expenses, taxes, commissions, or royalties.
The important point is that a boxer does not necessarily need one enormous licensing agreement to generate substantial income.
Several smaller agreements might produce greater combined earnings.
Of course, the boxer must consider whether multiple companies are genuinely interested. An exclusive offer might still be more valuable than all realistic nonexclusive opportunities combined.
But a boxer should evaluate those alternatives before surrendering their freedom to negotiate.
2. Boxers Could Lower Their Licensing Fees Because They Are Earning Money From Multiple Games
This is an important part of the argument that often gets overlooked.
A boxer who receives income from several videogame companies may not need to charge every developer an enormous licensing fee.
In fact, lowering individual licensing fees could become a profitable business strategy.
Consider a retired champion who normally requests $100,000 to appear in a videogame.
A major publisher might afford that amount, but several smaller companies might not.
Under a flexible nonexclusive licensing model, the boxer could negotiate different agreements based on each project's budget, commercial expectations, and royalty structure.
For example:
A major publisher pays $100,000.
A mid-sized developer pays $60,000.
An independent simulation developer pays $25,000.
A smaller historical boxing game pays $15,000.
The boxer earns a combined $200,000 while four different developers receive permission to feature them.
No individual developer needs to carry the entire financial burden.
And the boxer is not restricted to only one videogame.
These agreements would still need to be commercially reasonable, and the boxer should not be expected to accept inadequate compensation simply because a developer has a smaller budget.
However, the ability to negotiate multiple deals creates flexibility that an exclusive arrangement may eliminate.
Lower prices could attract more licensing opportunities
There is another consideration.
A licensing fee that is too expensive might discourage developers from even approaching the boxer.
A more affordable, nonexclusive arrangement could encourage additional companies to negotiate.
Imagine six videogame developers interested in including a former heavyweight champion.
If the champion demands $250,000 from every company, only one might seriously consider the deal.
But if the champion offers appropriately structured nonexclusive licenses at $30,000 to $60,000, several companies might find the agreement financially feasible.
The boxer could potentially make more money through broader participation.
Sometimes making your likeness more accessible could be more profitable than making it exclusive.
That approach could be particularly beneficial to retired champions, former contenders, journeymen, regional titleholders, and estates of historical boxers.
It also creates the possibility of a larger market for licensing boxer identities.
3. Lower Licensing Costs Could Help Independent Developers Compete
Large publishers generally have access to greater financial resources than small independent studios.
When boxer likeness rights become expensive or are locked behind exclusive agreements, smaller developers may struggle to build recognizable rosters.
That can prevent otherwise promising projects from reaching their full potential.
Imagine an independent development company with a technically sophisticated boxing simulation.
Its developers have invested heavily in realistic footwork, distance management, defensive mechanics, inside fighting, adaptive AI, authentic boxer tendencies, and advanced career systems.
However, the studio has a limited licensing budget.
If every recognizable boxer requires a massive exclusive agreement, that developer may be forced to release a game consisting almost entirely of fictional boxers.
There is nothing inherently wrong with fictional boxers. A strong Creation Suite and a living boxing universe can make fictional competitors extremely compelling.
But officially licensed boxers can improve commercial visibility and historical authenticity.
A nonexclusive licensing ecosystem could make it easier for smaller studios to negotiate with professional boxers and their representatives.
Developers could use some of the money saved on licensing to invest in:
More accurate boxer models, animations, stances, and postures.
Better boxing research and historical documentation.
Expanded gameplay mechanics and authentic boxing systems.
Larger rosters that include overlooked champions and contenders.
More sophisticated offline Career, Universe, and Amateur Boxing modes.
Better AI, testing, quality assurance, and simulation calibration.
Comprehensive Creation Suites and customization systems.
Licensing savings would not guarantee that these improvements happen. Developers would still need the expertise, resources, and willingness to prioritize them.
Nevertheless, lowering a barrier to entry could help create a more competitive industry.
A developer's opportunity to produce a great boxing videogame should not depend primarily on whether it can outspend every competitor for boxer likeness rights.
4. Muhammad Ali and the Problem With Long-Term Exclusivity
Muhammad Ali provides a particularly important example.
In May 2025, Steel City Interactive announced that its exclusive videogame licensing partnership with Muhammad Ali Enterprises had been extended through 2037.
From a commercial perspective, I understand why Steel City Interactive would want such an agreement.
Muhammad Ali is one of boxing's most recognizable historical figures. His involvement adds considerable promotional value to a boxing videogame.
But I question whether keeping his likeness unavailable to competing developers benefits boxing fans or the industry's long-term development.
Consider the possibilities if multiple qualified developers had the opportunity to negotiate the rights to feature Muhammad Ali.
One company might specialize in reproducing his early professional career, including his extraordinary footwork, hand speed, reflexes, and athletic movement.
Another might focus on the older, more experienced Ali, emphasizing changes in his approach, ring intelligence, tactical adjustments, clinching, and defensive strategy.
A historical simulation developer might create a detailed representation of different stages of his career, including appropriate versions of his physique, movement, abilities, opposition, and championship history.
Every company would still need to perform the research and development necessary to represent Ali accurately.
But fans would have more choices.
This is not a claim that Muhammad Ali Enterprises received inadequate compensation. The complete financial details of the agreement are not publicly available, and the estate may consider its terms highly favorable.
The larger question remains:
Should one company control the authorized videogame representation of an individual who has contributed so much to the history of boxing for such an extended period?
I believe that is a question worth asking, particularly as technology makes increasingly sophisticated historical simulations possible.
5. Competition Should Be About Gameplay, Not Exclusively About Rosters
This may be the most significant benefit for boxing videogame fans.
If multiple companies have opportunities to license the same boxers, they must work harder to differentiate their products.
A famous boxer appearing on the cover should not automatically establish that a game provides the most authentic representation of boxing.
Consider Mike Tyson.
Imagine three videogame companies have licenses to feature Tyson during the same period of his career.
In the first game, Tyson looks visually accurate but moves like a generic heavyweight with extremely powerful punches.
In the second, he has recognizable animations but lacks authentic defensive reactions, ring positioning, and offensive timing.
In the third, developers carefully reproduce his peek-a-boo defense, coordinated head movement, explosive entries, compact combinations, shifts in distance, physical balance, rhythm, and individual tendencies.
Which game would knowledgeable boxing fans consider the more authentic representation?
The answer should depend on how effectively each game reproduces Tyson's abilities, not on which developer obtained exclusive access to his likeness.
The same principle applies to Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Roberto Durán, Sugar Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, Terence Crawford, and countless other boxers.
Accurate representation requires more than a recognizable face and a collection of generic animations.
It involves understanding what makes each boxer unique.
This includes posture, positioning, movement, offensive choices, defensive preferences, punch selection, combinations, reactions, conditioning, and tactical intelligence.
Licensing gives a developer permission to represent a boxer. It does not automatically give that developer the knowledge or technology required to represent the boxer authentically.
When several developers can feature the same boxer, consumers have a clearer opportunity to compare the quality of those representations.
That is the type of competition I would like to see.
6. Fans Should Not Be Forced to Purchase a Particular Game to Access Their Favorite Boxer
Every boxing videogame will have its own design philosophy.
Some developers will pursue arcade-oriented experiences.
Others will create hybrid systems.
Some may emphasize competitive online play.
Others may concentrate on historically authentic boxing simulations, advanced offline modes, and detailed boxer individuality.
These different approaches can coexist.
But suppose a fan wants to play as Sugar Ray Robinson in an authentic simulation and discovers that his likeness is exclusively licensed to a company whose gameplay they do not enjoy.
Why should that fan be forced to purchase a product that does not satisfy their preferences just to experience their favorite boxer?
Under nonexclusive licensing, different developers could offer different gameplay experiences featuring the same authorized boxers.
The fan could choose the product that best suits their expectations.
This could also create opportunities to feature multiple authentic versions of individual boxers.
For instance, a historically focused game might represent a boxer during their early career, championship peak, and later years, with appropriate changes to physical ability, appearance, tendencies, and fighting style.
Another videogame might concentrate on contemporary boxing or competitive multiplayer.
Both could have valid reasons to license the same boxer.
Nonexclusive agreements would not guarantee every boxer appears in every game, because rights must still be negotiated and development costs remain.
But they could eliminate a significant legal obstacle to broader availability.
Boxing fans should be able to choose a videogame because they enjoy its gameplay, features, and modes, not because one company has secured exclusive control over their favorite boxers.
7. Retired Champions and Overlooked Boxers Could Generate New Income
Discussions about boxing videogame licensing usually concentrate on highly recognizable champions.
Yet boxing history contains thousands of accomplished boxers who rarely receive attention in modern videogames.
Former world champions, regional champions, contenders, journeymen, amateur standouts, and technically influential boxers all have histories worth representing.
Many retired boxers no longer receive significant income from boxing.
Nonexclusive licensing could provide additional earning opportunities, especially if developers could negotiate smaller, affordable agreements.
Imagine a retired champion appearing in four different videogames.
One game recreates the champion's historical career.
Another features the boxer in a modern boxing universe.
A third specializes in classic championship matchups.
A fourth emphasizes detailed simulation and individual boxer characteristics.
The boxer could receive compensation from each participating developer.
Their appearances could also introduce their achievements to younger fans unfamiliar with their careers.
For deceased boxers, authorized estates or other relevant rights holders could potentially negotiate agreements that create continuing revenue.
However, the economic potential should not be exaggerated. Demand for some historical names may remain limited, and licensing negotiations can involve complications concerning ownership of rights.
Even so, a more accessible licensing market could create opportunities that would otherwise never materialize.
8. Historical Boxing Should Not Be Locked Behind Exclusive Agreements
Boxing has a history spanning generations, continents, cultures, and changing rules.
Every era has produced distinctive boxers, tactics, training methods, championship organizations, and competitive environments.
Imagine a developer attempting to build a comprehensive historical boxing universe spanning more than a century.
The developer wants to recreate championship lineages, boxing organizations, meaningful rivalries, individual records, training environments, and historically accurate matchups.
However, several essential boxers are unavailable because their likeness rights are exclusively committed to competing videogame companies.
The developer may have to omit those boxers, seek special arrangements, or rely on fictional alternatives.
As a result, important portions of boxing history could be absent from an otherwise sophisticated simulation.
A developer should be allowed to negotiate for the representation of historical boxers without encountering unnecessary exclusivity barriers.
Historical facts themselves are not automatically owned by the companies licensing boxer likenesses. Nevertheless, authorized commercial use of a person's identity can involve rights that differ by jurisdiction and contractual arrangement.
The distinction is important.
No videogame company owns boxing history simply because it has an exclusive license to represent a famous boxer.
I would rather see developers competing to determine who can most accurately recreate boxing history instead of competing to prevent others from recreating it.
9. Long-Term Exclusivity Can Restrict a Boxer's Future Opportunities
Technology continues to change videogame development.
New animation systems, procedural techniques, machine learning, motion analysis, scanning technologies, and simulation architectures can make increasingly sophisticated boxing videogames possible.
A boxer who signs a lengthy exclusive agreement might miss future opportunities to participate in projects using these technologies.
Suppose a boxer signs a ten-year exclusive contract.
Three years later, another developer announces a technologically advanced boxing simulation and offers superior financial terms.
The boxer might be unable to participate because of the existing agreement.
The situation could become even more problematic if the original publisher delays development, cancels the project, reduces support, or stops producing boxing games.
An exclusive contract may continue restricting the boxer even when the licensed videogame is no longer commercially active.
This is why boxers should pay careful attention to contract duration, renewal provisions, release requirements, termination rights, and performance obligations.
If a developer wants exclusivity, the agreement should contain meaningful compensation and clearly defined protections.
A boxer's future business opportunities should not remain unnecessarily restricted by a videogame publisher's decisions.
10. Smaller Upfront Payments Combined With Royalties Could Be Another Solution
Nonexclusive licensing does not have to rely entirely on large upfront fees.
Developers and boxers could negotiate arrangements combining a modest guaranteed payment with royalties tied to clearly defined commercial results.
Consider an independent developer that cannot afford a substantial licensing fee.
Instead of rejecting the opportunity outright, a boxer might negotiate a smaller payment together with an agreed royalty or additional compensation triggered by sales milestones.
This could make licensing more accessible while giving the boxer an opportunity to share in the project's success.
A publisher with a larger budget might prefer a higher guaranteed payment and a different royalty arrangement.
Both approaches could coexist.
The contract should clearly define eligible sales, deductions, royalty calculations, reporting requirements, audit rights, and payment schedules.
A boxer should not have to accept an uncertain future royalty in place of reasonable guaranteed compensation without understanding the risks.
Nevertheless, flexible licensing structures could improve accessibility across the industry.
11. Exclusive Agreements Have Advantages, But They Must Be Worth the Restrictions
I am not arguing that every exclusive contract is automatically a bad business decision.
An exclusive agreement might offer a boxer a substantial guaranteed payment, prominent cover placement, extensive marketing exposure, or an unusually favorable royalty arrangement.
A developer might also commit significant resources to recreating a particular boxer through detailed scanning, original performance capture, historical research, and specialized gameplay systems.
Such commitments can have legitimate commercial value.
The boxer must compare the value of the exclusive offer against the realistic benefits of retaining licensing freedom.
| Business consideration | Exclusive licensing | Nonexclusive licensing |
|---|---|---|
| Guaranteed upfront payment | May command a substantial premium | Negotiated separately with each developer |
| Overall income | Concentrated in one arrangement | Multiple possible revenue streams |
| Developer access | Limited by contractual restrictions | Multiple developers can negotiate |
| Licensing affordability | Exclusive rights may be expensive | Individual agreements may be more affordable |
| Exposure | Concentrated in licensed products | Potential access to different audiences |
| Financial dependence | Greater dependence on one commercial partner | Revenue can be diversified |
| Long-term flexibility | May be restricted | Generally greater negotiating freedom |
| Consumer choice | Particular boxers may be unavailable elsewhere | More potential roster options |
Neither approach automatically guarantees greater profits, better games, or broader exposure.
What matters is the compensation, contractual protections, number of interested developers, and actual commercial opportunities.
My preference is for nonexclusive agreements because they preserve more options and create greater potential for participation throughout the videogame industry.
12. Boxers Need Better Contractual Protections
Boxers and their representatives should understand exactly which rights are being licensed.
Their agreements should address several fundamental issues.
Nonexclusive rights: Unless adequately compensated for exclusivity, boxers should retain the opportunity to negotiate with additional videogame developers.
Fair compensation: Contracts should clearly identify guaranteed payments, royalties, bonuses, revenue-sharing provisions, and reporting obligations.
Contract duration: Licensing periods should be commercially reasonable, with carefully negotiated renewal terms.
Likeness and representation: Agreements should define how the boxer's name, physical appearance, voice, biographical information, and recognizable characteristics may be used.
Digital replica and AI protections: A developer should not automatically receive unrestricted rights to reproduce, alter, or reuse a boxer's digital identity across unrelated products.
Sequel and downloadable content rights: Permission to appear in one videogame should not automatically imply unlimited authorization for sequels, future releases, advertising, and additional content.
Termination and reversion: Contracts should address missed milestones, cancellation, nonpayment, inactivity, and other circumstances in which licensing rights may end.
Commercial transparency: Boxers should have access to appropriate accounting information and contractual mechanisms to verify amounts owed.
These protections should be evaluated by qualified sports and entertainment attorneys.
An agreement must also establish who is legally authorized to license the particular rights involved, including circumstances involving estates, existing representation agreements, promotional arrangements, and other third parties.
13. What This Could Mean for EA Fight Night, SCI, and the Next Generation of Boxing Games
Competition between EA Sports, Steel City Interactive, and future boxing videogame developers could benefit consumers.
But that competition should be centered on gameplay quality, authenticity, innovation, technical execution, and features.
It should not become primarily a contest over which company can secure the greatest number of exclusive boxer agreements.
Consider the opportunity for an emerging developer.
A small company might not have the financial resources of EA or another established publisher.
Nevertheless, it might assemble an exceptional team of boxing researchers, historians, simulation designers, animation specialists, AI programmers, and gameplay engineers.
That company could potentially produce a sophisticated boxing simulation with authentic boxing mechanics and extensive offline functionality.
Nonexclusive licensing could allow such a developer to negotiate access to recognized boxers without needing to defeat a much larger publisher in an exclusivity bidding war.
Meanwhile, a major publisher would remain free to license the same boxers and invest in its own gameplay systems.
Consumers could evaluate the competing products.
One company might provide better graphics.
Another might provide a superior historical Career Mode.
Another might deliver more realistic movement, defensive behavior, inside fighting, judging, or boxer individuality.
The presence of the same boxer across multiple products would not make those products identical.
It would make the differences between them more meaningful.
That is healthy competition.
And competition could pressure developers to improve rather than rely too heavily on the commercial value of famous names.
14. My Proposal: An Open, Nonexclusive Boxing Videogame Licensing Ecosystem
I believe the boxing industry should explore an organized, voluntary, nonexclusive licensing framework.
Such a system could make negotiations easier for boxers, estates, publishers, and independent developers.
It could include standardized contract options, transparent compensation structures, individual approval rights, royalty reporting, and secure handling of digital likeness data.
Participating boxers could establish different licensing arrangements based on a developer's resources, expected distribution, commercial reach, and proposed use of their identity.
For instance, a retired boxer might offer a comparatively affordable agreement to a small historical simulation project while negotiating a higher fee with a major commercial publisher.
A boxer could also choose different terms for a traditional boxing simulation, a mobile game, or a documentary-oriented interactive experience.
All of those agreements could potentially exist without exclusive restrictions.
An independent administrator or boxer-approved licensing collective might help coordinate these arrangements, provided participation remained voluntary and individual rights were respected.
This would not mean videogame companies receive boxer likenesses for free.
Nor would it mean every boxer must accept the same licensing fee.
The goal would be to reduce unnecessary barriers while preserving compensation, choice, and individual control.
Such a framework could help developers build larger, more historically representative rosters and allow boxers to benefit from multiple commercial relationships.
15. The Greatest Benefit: Developers Would Have to Earn Their Customers
My concern with exclusivity is not simply that a boxer might appear in only one particular videogame.
It is the effect that widespread exclusivity could have on the industry's competitive environment.
When famous boxers become unavailable to competing developers, a publisher may gain a commercial advantage that has little to do with the quality of its gameplay.
Consumers might purchase a game because it is the only officially licensed product featuring particular boxers, even when they are dissatisfied with its mechanics, modes, or simulation depth.
I would rather see developers compete through quality.
Can the game authentically reproduce the differences between a swarmer, an out-boxer, a counterpuncher, and a boxer-puncher?
Does it accurately represent individual physical dimensions, reach, posture, balance, footwork, and defensive reactions?
Can a heavyweight who is 5 feet 5 inches tall realistically compete against one who is 6 feet 9 inches tall without broken animations or unrealistic hit detection?
Does the AI recognize individual tendencies, adjust tactically, manage fatigue, respond to damage, and make decisions appropriate to the boxer?
Does the game feature meaningful offline Career and Universe modes, intelligent CPU-versus-CPU competition, detailed historical systems, and an advanced Creation Suite?
Does it represent professional and amateur boxing with the depth and authenticity the sport deserves?
These are the questions that should separate one boxing videogame from another.
Famous names are valuable, but they cannot compensate for every deficiency in gameplay design.
The best boxing videogame should earn its reputation through how well it represents boxing, not through how many famous boxers its competitors are prevented from using.
Final Thoughts: Why Limit a Boxer's Earning Potential or a Fan's Choices?
A boxer spends years developing their skills, reputation, public identity, and professional legacy.
That identity can continue generating commercial value long after the boxer retires.
Why should a boxer automatically surrender the right to negotiate with additional videogame developers?
Why should an independent studio with an ambitious boxing simulation be denied the opportunity to license a boxer simply because a larger company secured exclusive rights?
And why should boxing fans have to purchase a particular game just to experience an authorized version of their favorite boxer?
Nonexclusive licensing could address all three concerns.
It could enable boxers to earn money from multiple companies. It could also allow them to negotiate lower individual licensing fees because they are generating income from several sources rather than depending on one agreement.
That flexibility could make recognized boxers more affordable for independent studios, encourage larger rosters, and introduce historical champions to new audiences.
It could give publishers a stronger incentive to compete through gameplay, presentation, features, modes, historical accuracy, and authentic boxer representation.
Of course, multiple licensing deals do not automatically produce greater income. Boxers must evaluate actual offers, negotiate carefully, and protect their commercial rights.
However, exclusivity should be a deliberate financial choice, not an unquestioned industry expectation.
A boxer might earn more money from five affordable nonexclusive agreements than from one expensive exclusive agreement. A developer might afford more boxers because licensing costs are reasonable. And fans might finally be able to choose the boxing videogame they enjoy most without losing access to their favorite boxers.
That is the opportunity I believe the boxing videogame industry should seriously consider.
My Message to Boxers, Their Representatives, and Boxing Estates
Before signing an exclusive videogame agreement, ask yourselves whether the amount being offered justifies losing the opportunity to work with other developers.
Consider the potential income from multiple sources.
Consider the future of gaming technology.
Consider how many companies might want to represent your career, identity, achievements, and legacy.
And consider the fans who might want to experience that legacy across different kinds of boxing videogames.
One exclusive agreement might offer immediate financial security.
But several well-negotiated nonexclusive agreements could potentially create greater long-term opportunities.
Your career belongs to you. Your commercial likeness rights deserve careful protection. And your videogame legacy does not necessarily need to belong to one publisher.
My Message to Boxing Videogame Developers and Publishers
If you want boxing fans to support your product, produce a boxing videogame worth supporting.
Compete through innovation.
Compete through authenticity.
Compete through your gameplay systems, individual boxer representations, AI, historical research, presentation, offline modes, and technical execution.
Don't depend on exclusivity to make competing games less attractive.
The ultimate goal should not be to keep boxers out of competing videogames. It should be to make your videogame the one fans prefer playing.
Questions for the Boxing and Gaming Communities
Should boxers generally favor nonexclusive videogame contracts over exclusive agreements?
Would boxers earn more by charging several developers smaller licensing fees rather than relying on one large contract?
Should retired champions and historical boxing estates consider more affordable licensing arrangements for independent developers?
Should boxing videogame companies compete primarily through gameplay and features rather than exclusive roster agreements?
Would you prefer to see your favorite boxer represented in several different boxing videogames so you could choose the most authentic experience?
Poe & The Community Speaks...
A Realistic Boxing Game Can Make a Hardcore Fan Out of a Casual.
#BoxingVideogames #FightNight #Undisputed #BoxingSimulation #BoxingHistory #GamingIndustry #BoxerLicensing #NonexclusiveLicensing #PoeSpeaks #BringBackESBC
No comments:
Post a Comment