Showing posts with label EA. Show all posts

Saturday, June 13, 2026

Response to what Ash Habib might say as a response

Poe’s Response Bank for an Ash Habib Interview

Opening Rule for the Interview

Before we start, I want to be clear: I’m not here to personally attack you. I’m here to ask the questions that a lot of hardcore boxing fans, offline players, career mode players, and simulation-minded players feel have not been answered directly.

So when I ask something, I’m not looking for a broad industry answer like “authenticity,” “balance,” “vision,” or “we listened to everyone.” I’m asking for specifics: what was promised, what changed, why it changed, who made that decision, and what data supports it.

1. If Ash Says: “Undisputed Was Made By Boxing Fans, For Boxing Fans.”

Poe’s Response:

I hear that, but that phrase needs to be challenged now.

When you say “made by boxing fans, for boxing fans,” which boxing fans are you talking about? Because a lot of hardcore boxing fans immediately noticed missing fundamentals: no proper clinching, no in-ring referee, no true inside fighting, limited career ecosystem, limited boxer individuality, and mechanics that often felt more like a hybrid fighting game than a boxing simulation.

So my question is not whether people on the team liked boxing. My question is: did the team understand boxing deeply enough to represent the sport mechanically?

Because being a fan of boxing and knowing how to translate boxing into gameplay are two different things.

Follow-up:

Were real boxing minds involved in shaping the mechanics at a deep level, or were boxing fans mostly used as marketing language?

2. If Ash Says: “We Tried to Please Everyone.”

Poe’s Response:

That sounds like a convenient explanation, but to me that is exactly what options, sliders, and separate gameplay lanes are for.

You do not have to ruin the hardcore experience to make the game accessible. You create casual settings, hybrid settings, and simulation settings. You allow players to choose. That is how sports games should handle different audiences.

So when you say you tried to please everyone, my response is: why didn’t you build systems that separated those audiences instead of blending everything into one compromised experience?

Follow-up:

Why was the answer to feedback not deeper options, sliders, and modes instead of pulling the game away from the realistic/simulation direction many fans originally supported?

3. If Ash Says: “We Should Have Stuck to Our Vision More.”

Poe’s Response:

But that raises a bigger question: what exactly was the vision?

Because the early ESBC messaging made a lot of hardcore fans believe the vision was a realistic, authentic, simulation-style boxing game. Then over time, the product felt more hybrid, more accessible, and more arcade-leaning.

So when you say you should have stuck to your vision, some fans hear that as blaming the community for the studio’s own design decisions.

The fans did not remove clinching. The fans did not remove the in-ring referee. The fans did not limit career mode. The fans did not decide how stamina, movement, damage, block fatigue, or boxer identity would work.

Those were development decisions.

Follow-up:

Can you name one major decision that hardcore boxing fans forced onto the game that made Undisputed worse?

4. If Ash Says: “The Loud Minority Was Impossible to Please.”

Poe’s Response:

This is where I need to push back.

Calling hardcore boxing fans the “loud minority” does not answer the question. It avoids the question.

Where is the data proving they are the minority? Was there a third-party survey? Was there a public study? Was there a transparent breakdown separating casual players, offline players, online players, simulation players, career mode players, and competitive players?

Because in sports gaming, the hardcore fans are usually the ones who understand the sport the deepest. They are often the ones who notice what casual players may not notice right away.

So calling them a loud minority can become a way to dismiss valid criticism without proving anything.

Follow-up:

Would you support a neutral third-party survey of boxing game fans, with public results, to find out what the community actually wants?

5. If Ash Says: “Authenticity Was Always the Goal.”

Poe’s Response:

Authenticity sounds good, but it is too broad.

Authenticity can mean presentation. It can mean licenses. It can mean ring walks. It can mean gloves, shorts, commentary, or arenas. But hardcore boxing fans are asking about gameplay authenticity.

Does the game authentically represent clinching? Inside fighting? Ring cutting? Referee involvement? Fatigue? Damage accumulation? Different boxing styles? Vulnerability? Foot placement? Defensive responsibility? Fighter identity?

A game can look authentic and still not play like boxing.

So I need more than the word “authenticity.” I need to know what systems define that authenticity.

Follow-up:

When you say “authentic,” do you mean authentic presentation, authentic gameplay, or both? And which exact gameplay systems prove it?

6. If Ash Says: “Realistic and Fun Have to Be Balanced.”

Poe’s Response:

I agree that a game has to be fun. But fun does not have to mean less realistic.

For a hardcore boxing fan, realism is the fun. Strategy is the fun. Risk and consequence are the fun. Different styles are the fun. Having to think like a boxer is the fun.

The problem is when companies assume casual players can only enjoy a dumbed-down version of the sport. That is how you turn boxing into a generic fighting game.

You can make the game accessible without taking away the depth. Tutorials, assists, sliders, difficulty settings, and separate rule contracts can help casual players learn without stripping the game of boxing identity.

Follow-up:

Why not make realistic boxing the foundation, then build accessibility around it instead of compromising the foundation itself?

7. If Ash Says: “This Was Our First Game.”

Poe’s Response:

I respect that Undisputed was the studio’s first major game, but that explanation has limits.

You were not making a small experimental title anymore once you had major boxer licenses, investors, a publisher, console release expectations, and years of public marketing. Also, the studio had experienced developers involved, so this cannot be framed as a group of complete beginners trying their best with no outside knowledge.

The issue is not that mistakes happened. The issue is whether the studio is taking full accountability for the direction of the game.

Follow-up:

At what point does “this was our first game” stop being an explanation and start becoming an excuse?

8. If Ash Says: “We Had to Make Tough Decisions.”

Poe’s Response:

I understand tough decisions happen in game development. But fans deserve to know which decisions were technical limitations, which were budget limitations, and which were creative choices.

Because those are not the same thing.

If clinching was removed because it was technically broken, say that. If the referee was removed because it was too hard to implement, say that. If inside fighting was limited because of design direction, say that.

The community can handle honesty. What frustrates people is vague messaging.

Follow-up:

Can you separate the missing features into three categories: technical limitation, budget/time limitation, and creative decision?

9. If Ash Says: “The Game Has 5.5 Million Players.”

Poe’s Response:

That number needs context.

Are we talking about full-price buyers, Game Pass players, free trial players, unique accounts, active players, or people who played once? Because player count does not automatically equal satisfaction.

A lot of games get big numbers because people are curious, because the sport has a hungry audience, or because the game is available through a service. That does not prove the game delivered what the original hardcore audience expected.

Follow-up:

What are the retention numbers, active player numbers, refund data, review trends, and satisfaction data from boxing fans specifically?

10. If Ash Says: “The Hardcore Fans Wanted Too Much.”

Poe’s Response:

Hardcore fans did not ask for magic. They asked for boxing fundamentals.

Clinching is not extra. A referee is not extra. Inside fighting is not extra. Stamina logic is not extra. Style identity is not extra. Defensive responsibility is not extra. Career depth in a boxing game is not extra.

Those are foundational pieces of boxing.

So the question is not whether hardcore fans wanted too much. The question is whether the game was built with boxing’s full identity in mind from the beginning.

Follow-up:

Which hardcore requests do you believe were unreasonable, and why?

11. If Ash Says: “We Listened to the Community.”

Poe’s Response:

Listening is not the same as correctly interpreting feedback.

Also, which community did you listen to? Discord? Steam? Reddit? Content creators? Casual players? Competitive online players? Offline players? Career mode players? Former boxers? Coaches? Simulation fans?

The boxing game community is not one group. That is why a neutral third-party survey matters.

Without transparent data, “we listened to the community” becomes too vague.

Follow-up:

Can you show how community feedback was collected, categorized, and prioritized?

12. If Ash Says: “Content Creators Gave Us Feedback.”

Poe’s Response:

Content creators are not automatically a substitute for the boxing community.

Some content creators understand boxing. Some do not. Some are focused on online competition. Some are focused on views. Some may avoid hard criticism to keep access.

That is why community feedback cannot only go through creators, Discord groups, or selected voices.

Hardcore boxing fans, older Fight Night fans, offline players, former boxers, and career mode players deserve to be heard directly.

Follow-up:

Why not let the broader boxing game community speak through a neutral third-party survey instead of relying on filtered feedback?

13. If Ash Says: “We Had to Think About Casual Players Too.”

Poe’s Response:

Nobody is saying casual players should be ignored.

The issue is that casual players should not be used as the reason to weaken the boxing foundation.

Casual players can learn. That is what tutorials, assists, beginner settings, and accessibility options are for. A casual player does not need the sport watered down. They need a pathway into the sport.

A realistic boxing game can make a hardcore fan out of a casual player if the game teaches them properly.

Follow-up:

Why are casual players treated like they cannot appreciate depth when given the right tools to learn?

14. If Ash Says: “Simulation Does Not Sell.”

Poe’s Response:

Then prove it with data.

Because boxing fans have not had a true modern boxing simulation with deep career, full creation, referee logic, clinching, inside fighting, real stamina, and authentic boxer identity.

So it is unfair to say simulation does not sell when the market has barely been given a proper modern simulation boxing game to support.

Also, hardcore depth and commercial success are not enemies. Sports games can have assists, sliders, modes, and different settings.

Follow-up:

What modern boxing simulation failed commercially with all the proper features included? Because fans cannot reject what they were never truly given.

15. If Ash Says: “Undisputed 2 Will Be Better Because We Have More Experience Now.”

Poe’s Response:

Experience matters, but fans need more than that.

They need to know what lessons were actually learned. Not just “new engine,” not just “more experience,” not just “we are rebuilding.” The community needs specifics.

Will there be a real in-ring referee? Will clinching return properly? Will inside fighting be rebuilt? Will career mode be deeper? Will boxer identity be expanded? Will offline players get sliders, CPU vs CPU, and deep customization? Will hardcore simulation be protected as its own lane?

Because without specifics, “we have more experience now” sounds like another marketing reset.

Follow-up:

What specific systems are being rebuilt because of the criticism from Undisputed?

16. If Ash Says: “We Cannot Talk About Undisputed 2 Yet.”

Poe’s Response:

I understand you may not be able to reveal everything. But you can still talk about philosophy.

You can tell fans whether the sequel is aiming for a deeper simulation foundation or another broad hybrid experience. You can tell fans whether the missing fundamentals are being treated as priorities. You can tell fans whether offline players, career mode players, and hardcore boxing fans are being taken seriously.

So I’m not asking for a release date or secret features. I’m asking for direction.

Follow-up:

Philosophically, is the next game being built around realistic boxing first, or broad accessibility first?

17. If Ash Says: “We Are Proud of What We Built.”

Poe’s Response:

You can be proud of making a boxing game after years without one. I respect that.

But pride should not stop accountability.

The community can appreciate that Undisputed brought boxing back to gaming while still saying the game did not fully deliver on the realistic boxing experience many fans thought they were supporting.

Both things can be true.

Follow-up:

Can you acknowledge that many hardcore boxing fans feel the game shifted away from what ESBC originally represented?

18. If Ash Says: “People Online Are Too Negative.”

Poe’s Response:

Some people are toxic. I agree with that. Personal attacks should not be defended.

But criticism is not automatically negativity.

When fans point out missing boxing systems, weak mechanics, lack of depth, or unclear communication, that is not hate. That is feedback.

The danger is when a studio uses toxic comments as a shield to avoid answering valid criticism.

Follow-up:

How do you separate toxic comments from legitimate boxing criticism?

19. If Ash Says: “The Team Worked Hard.”

Poe’s Response:

I do not doubt that the team worked hard.

But hard work and correct direction are not the same thing.

A team can work hard and still make the wrong design decisions. A team can care and still misunderstand what hardcore fans are asking for. A team can put years into a project and still miss foundational boxing elements.

The discussion is not whether people worked hard. The discussion is whether the game represented boxing the way it was marketed and expected to.

Follow-up:

What would you say to fans who respect the effort but still feel the final direction missed the mark?

20. If Ash Says: “We Had to Make the Game Playable Online.”

Poe’s Response:

Online matters, but online should not dictate the entire boxing experience.

Offline players, career mode players, CPU vs CPU players, and simulation players should not lose depth because online balance is hard.

That is exactly why sports games need separate rule sets, separate sliders, and separate modes. Online ranked can have its own rules. Offline simulation can have its own rules.

One version of gameplay should not be forced on everybody.

Follow-up:

Why not separate online balance from offline realism?

21. If Ash Says: “Some Features Sound Easy But Are Hard to Build.”

Poe’s Response:

I agree. Game development is hard.

But fans were not asking for these things after the game was finished. Many of these features were discussed during the years when the game was still being shaped.

If something was too difficult, the studio should have communicated that clearly. If a feature was not going to make it, fans should not have been left believing the game was still moving toward that full boxing vision.

Follow-up:

Which major boxing features were too difficult to build properly, and when did the studio know they would not make it into the game?

22. If Ash Says: “The Community Had Unrealistic Expectations.”

Poe’s Response:

Some expectations may have been high, but were they unrealistic based on the way the game was presented?

That is the real issue.

If the game is marketed around realism, authenticity, and being built for boxing fans, then fans are going to expect boxing fundamentals. That is not unrealistic. That is the standard created by the messaging.

Follow-up:

Do you believe the marketing created expectations that the final game could not meet?

23. If Ash Says: “We Never Said It Would Be a Pure Simulation.”

Poe’s Response:

Then that should have been made extremely clear from the beginning.

Because many hardcore fans supported ESBC because they believed it was aiming to be the realistic boxing game they had been waiting for. If the vision was always hybrid, then that should have been stated plainly.

Fans should not have had to decode words like “authentic,” “realistic,” “balanced,” or “made by boxing fans.”

Follow-up:

Would you agree that clearer language earlier could have prevented a lot of backlash?

24. If Ash Says: “We Need to Appeal to a Wider Audience.”

Poe’s Response:

A wider audience does not mean you abandon the sport’s identity.

Boxing already has drama, strategy, violence, skill, personalities, rivalries, knockouts, politics, styles, gyms, promoters, trainers, and career stories. The sport has everything a game needs.

The answer is not to make boxing less like boxing. The answer is to teach players why boxing is exciting.

Follow-up:

Why does “wider audience” so often mean less boxing depth instead of better boxing education?

25. If Ash Says: “We Will Take Feedback Going Forward.”

Poe’s Response:

That sounds good, but fans need a better system than vague feedback collection.

There needs to be a serious third-party survey. Not just Discord posts. Not just creator feedback. Not just selected community voices.

A neutral survey could separate offline, online, casual, hardcore, career mode, competitive, and simulation players. Then the results should be made public.

That would stop the guessing. It would stop the “loud minority” argument. It would show what the community actually wants.

Follow-up:

Will you support a neutral third-party survey with public results?

26. If Ash Tries to Redirect to Sales, Licenses, or Presentation

Poe’s Response:

I respect the licenses. I respect the roster. I respect the presentation work.

But licenses do not answer gameplay concerns.

Muhammad Ali being in the game does not replace footwork logic. Licensed boxers do not replace clinching. Real venues do not replace the referee. Presentation does not replace inside fighting. A big roster does not replace boxer individuality.

So I want to bring this back to mechanics.

Follow-up:

What are the gameplay systems that make each boxer feel mechanically different beyond ratings and animations?

27. If Ash Gives a Long Answer Without Answering

Poe’s Response:

I appreciate the explanation, but I want to bring you back to the direct question.

The question was not whether game development is difficult. The question was why a boxing game marketed around realism and authenticity launched without several core boxing systems.

So I’ll ask it again more directly.

Follow-up:

Was the absence of those systems a technical limitation, a budget limitation, or a design choice?

28. If Ash Says: “We Cannot Please Everybody.”

Poe’s Response:

Nobody expects you to please everybody.

But the issue is whether the game properly served the audience it originally attracted: hardcore boxing fans who wanted a real boxing game.

When a game tries to please everyone by blending everything together, it can end up satisfying nobody fully.

That is why options matter. That is why sliders matter. That is why separate gameplay lanes matter.

Follow-up:

Why not build separate experiences instead of forcing one compromise experience?

29. If Ash Says: “Players Asked for Faster Gameplay.”

Poe’s Response:

Which players?

Were they online ranked players? Casual players? Content creators? Discord players? Former boxers? Offline players? Career mode players?

Because when you say “players asked,” the next question is always: which players, how many, and where is the data?

A vocal online group should not automatically define the entire boxing game experience.

Follow-up:

Did you separate online feedback from offline simulation feedback before making gameplay changes?

30. If Ash Says: “We Are Still Learning.”

Poe’s Response:

Learning is good. But learning has to come with accountability.

The community needs to know what you learned specifically. Did you learn that hardcore fans need to be surveyed properly? Did you learn that boxing mechanics cannot be treated as optional? Did you learn that vague marketing language creates mistrust? Did you learn that offline and online need separate design priorities?

Because “we are still learning” only matters if the next product proves the lesson was learned.

Follow-up:

What are the top five lessons you learned from Undisputed that will directly change the next boxing game?

Closing Statement

I want to end by saying this: hardcore boxing fans are not the enemy. The people asking hard questions are not trying to destroy boxing games. A lot of us have been waiting decades for boxing to be respected properly in gaming.

We are not asking for perfection. We are asking for honesty, direction, data, and accountability.

If Undisputed was always meant to be a broad hybrid game, then say that clearly. If it was meant to be a realistic boxing game but the studio could not fully deliver, say that clearly too.

But do not dismiss hardcore fans as a loud minority without data. Do not hide behind words like authenticity and balance without explaining what they mean mechanically. Do not say made by boxing fans for boxing fans without being clear about which boxing fans shaped the game.

The boxing community deserves better than slogans.

We deserve answers.

Friday, June 12, 2026

[Share This Post on Social Medias] A Structured Interview Between Poe and SCI Owner Ash Habib

A Structured Interview Between Poe and SCI Owner Ash Habib

Title: The Interview Boxing Gaming Fans Deserve

This would not be a soft promotional interview. This would not be an interview built around protecting SCI, protecting Undisputed, or giving Ash Habib easy escape routes. This would be a structured, respectful, direct interview from someone who actually knows boxing, gaming, community feedback, and the difference between a boxing game and an arcade fighting game with boxing gloves.

Poe would not come into the interview yelling. He would come in prepared. He would come in with receipts, history, fan concerns, gameplay examples, and the perspective of someone who has boxed, gamed for decades, worked around boxing gaming communities, and built one of the deepest boxing video game blueprints anywhere.

The purpose of the interview would be simple:

What happened with Undisputed, what is SCI really building next, and why should hardcore boxing fans trust the studio again?

Opening Statement From Poe

Ash, I appreciate you sitting down with me. I want to make one thing clear before we start. This is not personal. I do not believe every hard question is an attack. I believe hard questions are necessary when people spend their hard-earned money on a product that was marketed around realism, authenticity, boxing fans, and the future of boxing games.

A lot of content creators and media members ask safe questions. They ask broad questions. They let terms like “authenticity,” “balance,” “fun,” and “vision” go unchallenged. I am not going to do that.

Boxing fans deserve clarity. Consumers deserve clarity. And the hardcore community that supported ESBC before it became Undisputed deserves real answers.

Section 1: Defining The Game

Question 1: Is Undisputed 2 being built as a realistic/simulation boxing game by default, or is it being built as another hybrid?

Ash, when Mike Straw asked if Undisputed 2 would be realistic or arcade, you answered with “authenticity.” I need to challenge that.

Authenticity is not a gameplay model.

A game can look authentic and still play arcade. A game can have licensed boxers, real venues, and broadcast-style presentation, but still fail to simulate boxing systems.

So let me ask this directly:

Is Undisputed 2 realistic/sim by default, or is it another hybrid designed to sit between arcade players and hardcore boxing fans?

Follow-up:

If the answer is “authenticity,” what does that mean mechanically?

Does it mean realistic stamina?
Real clinching?
Inside fighting?
Referees in the ring?
Style-specific AI?
CPU vs CPU?
Realistic movement tied to weight, balance, and foot placement?
Damage that respects boxing logic?
Tendencies and traits that separate one boxer from another?

Or does it mostly mean presentation, licensing, and surface-level boxing identity?

Section 2: The Original ESBC Vision

Question 2: What happened to the original ESBC vision?

A lot of hardcore fans supported ESBC because it looked like the first serious boxing simulation in years. The early messaging made people believe this was going to be deeper, more realistic, and more boxing-focused than what we had before.

Then the game changed.

So the question is:

What specifically changed from the original ESBC vision to the final version of Undisputed?

Was it publisher pressure?
Investor pressure?
Online balancing?
New developers?
Budget?
Timeline?
Console certification?
A change in creative direction?
A belief that the hardcore fans were asking for too much?

Follow-up:

When did SCI decide that certain core boxing systems were no longer a priority?

Because the fans did not imagine those expectations. The expectations came from how the game was originally presented.

Section 3: “Made By Boxing Fans, For Boxing Fans”

Question 3: When you say “made by boxing fans, for boxing fans,” which boxing fans are you talking about?

This phrase has been used a lot, but many hardcore boxing fans do not feel represented by the final product.

So I want to ask clearly:

Which boxing fans was Undisputed made for?

Casual boxing fans?
Online competitive players?
Content creators?
eSports players?
Hardcore boxing historians?
Offline career players?
Simulation players?
Fight Night nostalgia players?

Because saying “boxing fans” is too broad. Boxing fans are not all asking for the same thing.

Follow-up:

Did SCI ever properly separate the feedback from casual players, hardcore boxing fans, online players, offline players, career mode players, and realistic/sim players?

Or did all feedback get thrown into one pile and then judged as “the community”?

Section 4: The “Loud Minority” Comment

Question 4: Why call hardcore fans the “loud minority” without showing the data?

Ash, you have referenced a loud vocal minority. But in sports gaming, hardcore fans are often the people who keep a game alive the longest. They buy DLC. They test systems. They notice what is missing. They create content. They bring authenticity pressure.

So my question is:

What data proves the hardcore realistic/sim boxing fans are only a loud minority?

Was there a third-party survey?
Was there public polling?
Was there retention data?
Was there mode-usage data?
Was there satisfaction data from offline players versus online players?

Follow-up:

Without public data, how do we know “loud minority” is not just a narrative used to dismiss criticism?

And if the hardcore community is so small, why are so many interviews and updates still trying to explain or defend decisions made around them?

Section 5: Blaming The Fans

Question 5: Did SCI blame fans for decisions SCI made?

When you say you should have “stuck to your guns” more, it sounds like the fans caused the game to lose direction. But fans did not remove referees. Fans did not remove clinching. Fans did not decide not to have true inside fighting. Fans did not design the stamina system. Fans did not create the movement issues. Fans did not decide the depth of career mode.

Those were studio decisions.

So I want to ask:

What decisions were actually changed because of fan pressure, and what decisions were simply SCI’s own direction?

Follow-up:

Can you name three major systems that were negatively changed because of fan feedback?

And can you separate that from systems that were never properly implemented in the first place?

Section 6: Missing Core Boxing Systems

Question 6: Why did Undisputed launch without core boxing systems that should be standard in a serious boxing game?

I am not talking about extra features. I am talking about boxing fundamentals.

Why no real clinching?
Why no proper inside fighting?
Why no in-ring referee?
Why no deeper foul system?
Why no meaningful corner instruction system?
Why no CPU vs CPU?
Why no deeper boxer-specific tendencies?
Why no real trainer impact?
Why no deep offline universe or promoter ecosystem?
Why no full creation suite that respects how much boxing fans create?

These are not luxury features. These are boxing systems.

Follow-up:

At what point did SCI decide these systems were not launch priorities?

And did anyone inside the studio argue that a boxing game cannot claim deep authenticity while missing that many boxing fundamentals?

Section 7: The In-Ring Referee

Question 7: How can a boxing game claim authenticity without a real referee in the ring?

The referee is not decoration. The referee controls clinches, fouls, breaks, knockdowns, stoppages, warnings, deductions, and ring authority.

So why was the referee not treated as a core gameplay system?

Follow-up:

Will Undisputed 2 have a functioning in-ring referee with sliders and options?

Can the referee have different tendencies?
Can some refs allow inside fighting more?
Can some break clinches faster?
Can some warn more?
Can some deduct points more?
Can some stop fights earlier?

That is how boxing identity is built.

Section 8: Clinching And Inside Fighting

Question 8: Why was clinching missing when clinching is part of boxing?

Some people treat clinching like it is boring or unnecessary, but clinching is boxing. Inside fighting is boxing. Holding, tying up, leaning, wrestling for position, breaking rhythm, surviving when hurt, and making a fight ugly are all part of the sport.

So I want to ask:

Why did Undisputed not have a true clinch and inside fighting system?

Follow-up:

Was it a design choice because the team thought casuals would not like it?

Was it a technical limitation?

Was it hard to balance online?

Or did SCI not understand how important clinching and inside fighting are to real boxing?

Section 9: Boxer Identity

Question 9: Why do too many boxers feel like skins instead of fully separated boxing identities?

A boxing game should not just have licensed names and faces. Each boxer should feel different because of tendencies, traits, capabilities, flaws, habits, rhythm, reactions, defense, punch selection, footwork, stamina behavior, ring IQ, and emotional response under pressure.

So my question is:

What is SCI doing to make boxers truly fight like themselves?

Follow-up:

Will Undisputed 2 have deep tendency sliders?

Will created boxers have tendencies?

Will CPU boxers fight differently without the user forcing it?

Will boxers have traits that create strengths and weaknesses?

Will a pressure boxer, counterpuncher, outside boxer, spoiler, brawler, technician, and defensive specialist actually behave differently round after round?

Section 10: Offline Players

Question 10: Why does it feel like offline boxing fans were treated as secondary?

A lot of hardcore boxing fans are offline players. They want career mode, promoter mode, CPU vs CPU, universe control, rankings, belts, sanctioning bodies, gyms, trainers, managers, rivalries, injuries, contracts, and the ability to watch their boxing world unfold.

So I want to ask:

Does SCI truly value offline players, or is offline depth being treated as less important than online balancing and content creator visibility?

Follow-up:

Will Undisputed 2 allow fans to watch any fight?

Will it have CPU vs CPU?

Will it have a deeper career ecosystem?

Will it have real rankings movement?

Will it have promoters, managers, trainers, and career politics?

Will offline players get sliders deep enough to shape the experience they paid for?

Section 11: Creation Suite

Question 11: Why was the creation suite not treated like a major pillar?

Boxing fans create. They create boxers, prospects, legends, gyms, trainers, promoters, referees, belts, organizations, fight cards, stables, and entire universes.

A deep creation suite is not a side feature. It is long-term life support for a boxing game.

So I want to ask:

Why did SCI not build a creation suite deep enough for the kind of boxing fans who keep sports games alive?

Follow-up:

Will Undisputed 2 have far more creation slots?

Can we create trainers?
Managers?
Promoters?
Referees?
Judges?
Belts?
Organizations?
Gyms?
Arenas?
Fight cards?
Records?
Styles?
Tendencies?
Traits?

Or is creation still going to be limited?

Section 12: Options And Sliders

Question 12: Why not solve many of these debates with options?

A lot of the conflict between casual players, online players, and hardcore simulation players could be solved with options.

Realistic stamina slider.
Damage slider.
Referee strictness slider.
Clinch frequency slider.
Inside fighting slider.
Footwork realism slider.
Punch speed slider.
Power modifier.
AI aggression.
AI ring IQ.
AI punch output.
AI defensive responsibility.
Career difficulty.
Cut frequency.
Doctor stoppage frequency.
Flash knockdown frequency.

So my question is:

Why are options not being treated as the bridge between casual accessibility and hardcore realism?

Follow-up:

Why force everyone into one balanced hybrid when you can let players customize the boxing experience?

Section 13: Transparency

Question 13: Why should fans trust SCI after Undisputed 1?

This is the question many people want to ask but dance around.

A lot of fans feel misled. They feel the game they supported as ESBC is not the game they received as Undisputed. They feel the messaging promised one thing, but the final product delivered something else.

So I want to ask:

Why should hardcore boxing fans trust SCI with Undisputed 2?

Follow-up:

What are you willing to show before launch?

Not trailers.
Not buzzwords.
Not creator trips.
Not controlled interviews.

Will you show raw gameplay?
CPU vs CPU?
Career mode depth?
Full settings?
Sliders?
AI behavior?
Clinching?
Referee systems?
Inside fighting?
Creation suite depth?
Offline ecosystem?

Trust is not rebuilt with words. Trust is rebuilt with proof.

Section 14: Third-Party Survey

Question 14: Why not support a real third-party boxing gaming survey?

SCI has talked about feedback. But feedback collected through Discord, content creators, selective communities, or internal surveys can be framed.

A true third-party survey with public results would show what fans actually want.

So my question is:

Would SCI support a serious third-party boxing video game survey with public results?

Follow-up:

If not, why?

If SCI is confident in its direction, why not let the fans speak through clean data?

Why not separate casual fans, hardcore fans, online players, offline players, career players, and sim players?

Why not let the data kill the argument?

Section 15: Content Creators And Media

Question 15: Do you think gaming media and content creators have asked you the hard questions?

A lot of interviews feel too soft. They ask about features, excitement, future plans, and broad lessons learned. But they do not press hard on missing systems, consumer trust, marketing language, fan division, and whether the product truly represents boxing.

So I want to ask:

Do you believe SCI has been seriously challenged by media, or has the studio mostly received safe interviews?

Follow-up:

Would you sit down with hardcore critics who know boxing and gaming, not just creators who are happy to be in the room?

Would you answer questions from people who supported the original vision but are not satisfied with what Undisputed became?

Section 16: The Final Question

Question 16: What is one thing you believe SCI got wrong, not because of fans, not because of budget, not because of pressure, but because SCI made the wrong call?

This is important because accountability cannot always be external.

So I want to ask:

What did SCI get wrong?

Not what fans misunderstood.
Not what was hard.
Not what the team learned.
Not what the market demanded.

What did SCI get wrong?

Follow-up:

And how will Undisputed 2 prove that lesson was truly learned?

Closing Statement From Poe

Ash, I appreciate you answering. But I want to close with this.

Hardcore boxing fans are not the enemy. Realistic/sim fans are not trying to destroy the game. Offline players are not outdated. People asking for referees, clinching, inside fighting, CPU vs CPU, sliders, deeper career, and real boxer identity are not asking for impossible things.

They are asking for boxing to be respected.

A boxing game should not be scared of boxing. It should not hide behind balance, accessibility, or vague words like authenticity. It should represent the sport with depth, options, and confidence.

That is the interview the boxing gaming community deserves.

Not a commercial.

Not a safe conversation.

A real one.

Add-On Questions:

Final Closing Question

Question 56: Are you willing to let the community judge Undisputed 2 by systems, not promises?

Ash, fans have already heard the words: authentic, realistic, balanced, passionate, boxing fans, community, vision, and lessons learned.

The next game cannot be judged by those words anymore.

So my final question is:

Are you willing to let Undisputed 2 be judged by visible systems before launch?

Not edited trailers.

Not interviews.

Not creator hype.

Systems.

Show the referee.
Show the clinch.
Show inside fighting.
Show AI adjustments.
Show CPU vs CPU.
Show career mode.
Show creation depth.
Show sliders.
Show damage logic.
Show stamina consequences.
Show boxer identity.
Show offline options.
Show the full fight experience.

Because this time, hardcore boxing fans are not asking for promises.

They are asking for proof.

Boxing Gaming Fans, Share This Until Ash Habib Answers

Boxing Gaming Fans, Share This Until Ash Habib Answers

This is not about hate. This is not about attacking Ash Habib personally. This is about accountability, clarity, and respect for the boxing fans who supported ESBC and Undisputed because we believed we were finally getting a real boxing game made for boxing fans.

Ash Habib needs to sit down with a real boxing gaming fan, someone like Poe, and answer the questions that safe interviewers, casual gaming media, and non-boxing creators are not asking.

We want clear answers:

When you say “authentic boxing,” what does that mean mechanically?

Was Undisputed built as a realistic/sim boxing game, a hybrid game, or an accessible arcade-leaning boxing game?

Why were major boxing systems like clinching, inside fighting, in-ring referees, deeper stamina, boxer tendencies, CPU vs CPU, and true offline depth missing or underdeveloped?

Who exactly are the “boxing fans” the game was made for?

Are hardcore boxing fans really a loud minority, or is that just a narrative without public data?

Why not do a serious third-party survey and release the results publicly?

Why should hardcore boxing fans trust Undisputed 2 if the first game did not deliver the depth many of us expected from the ESBC days?

This interview needs to happen because boxing fans deserve more than marketing words like “authentic,” “balance,” “fun,” and “accessibility.” We need real explanations. We need specifics. We need to know whether the future of Undisputed is truly about boxing as a sport or just another accessible fighting game with boxing presentation.

Poe would ask the questions many hardcore boxing fans want answered.

Not as a hater.

Not as a clout chaser.

As a boxing fan, a former boxer, a longtime boxing gamer, and someone who has been fighting for this community for decades.

Ash Habib, sit down with Poe and answer the real questions.

Boxing fans, repost this if you want a serious interview.

No more safe interviews.

No more vague answers.

No more blaming the fans.

Respect the sport. Respect the community. Answer the questions.

#Undisputed #Undisputed2 #BoxingGames #BoxingVideoGameCommunity #BoxingFans #ESBC #SteelCityInteractive #PoeAndTheCommunitySpeaks

Boxing Does Not Need to Borrow an Arcade Fighter’s Identity

Boxing has earned the right to be represented as its own sport.

That should not be controversial.

Every time a boxing game discussion comes up, the same excuse appears: the game has to be “accessible,” “fun,” “balanced,” or “appealing to everyone.” But too often, those words are used to justify moving boxing away from what actually makes it boxing. The sport gets softened, sped up, simplified, and turned into something closer to an arcade fighting game with ropes around it.

That is the disrespect.

Not because arcade games are bad. They are not. Arcade fighting games have their own purpose, their own fans, their own identity, and their own design rules. They can be flashy, exaggerated, fast, forgiving, and built around instant action. There is a place for that.

But boxing is not that.

Boxing is not just punches landing. Boxing is the work before the punch. The feint. The step. The setup. The trap. The adjustment. The mistake that costs you two rounds later. The jab that controls a whole fight without looking dramatic on a highlight reel.

When a game ignores those things, it is not making boxing more fun. It is removing the intelligence of the sport.

A real boxing game should not be afraid of patience. It should not be afraid of defense. It should not be afraid of making players think. It should not be afraid of punishing reckless stamina abuse, bad foot placement, poor punch selection, or careless pressure. That is not “too hardcore.” That is boxing.

The industry keeps acting like casual players can only enjoy boxing if the sport is stripped down for them. That is a weak way to design a sports game. Casual players are not stupid. They can learn. They can improve. They can become fans of the deeper systems when the game teaches them instead of hiding those systems.

That is how sports games grow an audience.

You do not build respect for a sport by disguising it as something else.

A boxing game should introduce players to why styles matter. Why a pressure fighter is not the same as a counterpuncher. Why a defensive specialist should feel different from a slugger. Why some boxers can fight off the back foot and others cannot. Why clinching is part of survival and strategy. Why the referee matters. Why inside fighting changes the whole tempo of a fight. Why a tired boxer should not move, punch, recover, or defend like a fresh one.

Those details are not extra features.

They are the sport.

When people say, “It’s just a game,” they are usually asking boxing fans to accept less. But nobody says that when they want realism in other sports titles. Football fans expect playbooks. Basketball fans expect tendencies. Racing fans expect handling models. MMA fans expect wrestling, submissions, striking, stamina, and ground control.

So why is boxing always treated like it should be satisfied with the bare minimum?

Boxing fans are not wrong for wanting a boxing game to respect boxing.

The solution is not to force everybody into one shallow middle ground. The solution is options. Give casual players assists. Give arcade players faster settings. Give online players rule sets. Give newcomers tutorials. Give everyone sliders.

But the foundation should still honor the sport.

Build the game from boxing first, then allow people to customize the experience around it. Do not build an arcade fighter first and then try to sell it to boxing fans as authentic.

That is where the disconnect happens.

A boxing game should understand distance, timing, styles, stamina, ring generalship, damage, clinching, judging, referees, footwork, tendencies, and defensive responsibility. It should understand that not every boxer moves the same, reacts the same, throws the same, blocks the same, or thinks the same.

That individuality is what makes the sport beautiful.

A great boxing game should make a casual player say, “Now I understand why boxing fans care about this.”

It should not make a hardcore boxing fan say, “Why does this feel like another arcade fighter?”

There is room in gaming for both. Arcade fighters can be arcade fighters. Boxing games can be boxing games. One does not need to swallow the identity of the other.

The problem starts when companies want the marketing power of boxing without the responsibility of representing boxing. They want the gloves, the belts, the legends, the knockouts, and the trailers. But when it comes to the deeper systems that define the sport, suddenly everything becomes “too difficult,” “too niche,” or “not fun enough.”

That mindset is why boxing fans keep pushing back.

We are not asking developers to remove fun. We are asking them to stop confusing fun with simplification.

Depth can be fun. Strategy can be fun. Realism can be fun. Learning can be fun. Winning because you outboxed someone instead of out-spammed them can be fun.

Boxing does not need to be rescued from itself.

It needs to be respected.

Give arcade fans their arcade mode. Give casual players their learning tools. Give competitive players their online rule sets. But give boxing fans the sport we have been asking for.

A boxing game should not have to pretend to be something else to be considered marketable.

Boxing already has drama. Boxing already has danger. Boxing already has personalities. Boxing already has history. Boxing already has strategy. Boxing already has everything a great video game needs.

The issue is not the sport.

The issue is whether the people making these games truly understand it.

Boxing should not be treated like a costume for an arcade fighter.

Let boxing stand on its own.

Investigative Blog: The “Loud Minority” Excuse; Who Decided Hardcore Boxing Fans Don’t Matter?

There is a question that keeps being avoided every time Ash Habib talks about Undisputed:

When he says the game was “made by boxing fans, for boxing fans,” who exactly is he talking about?

Because that phrase has been repeated so much that people stopped questioning it. It sounds good. It sounds passionate. It sounds like the studio understood the sport. But the actual product, the missing systems, the shallow boxing logic, and the way hardcore fans have been talked about tell a different story.

You cannot keep saying “made by boxing fans for boxing fans” while also dismissing a large section of boxing fans as a “loud minority.”

That is a contradiction.

If the game was really made for boxing fans, then the hardcore boxing fans asking for real boxing systems should not be treated like a problem. They should have been treated like the standard.

Which Boxing Fans Were Represented?

Every boxing fan does not want the same thing from a boxing video game.

Some fans want knockouts.

Some fans want quick online matches.

Some fans want big-name boxers.

Some fans want a game they can pick up and play without studying boxing.

But then there are the hardcore boxing fans.

The fans who care about footwork.

The fans who care about stamina.

The fans who care about range.

The fans who care about clinching.

The fans who care about inside fighting.

The fans who care about ring cutting.

The fans who care about judging.

The fans who care about tendencies, styles, traits, and boxer individuality.

The fans who know boxing is not just two people throwing punches until somebody falls.

So when Ash says “boxing fans,” the follow-up should always be:

Which ones?

Because a game can have boxing fans on the team and still not be built like a true boxing simulation. A person can love boxing and still not understand how to turn the sweet science into gameplay. A developer can watch boxing and still not know how to build proper ring generalship, clinch logic, defensive layers, fatigue, styles, or realistic AI.

Being a boxing fan is not enough.

The game has to prove that boxing knowledge through its systems.

“Loud Minority” Is Not Data

The phrase “loud minority” is doing a lot of work.

It makes critics sound small.

It makes hardcore fans sound unreasonable.

It makes the studio sound like it was overwhelmed by noise instead of challenged by valid criticism.

But where is the proof?

Where is the data showing hardcore boxing fans are the minority?

Where is the data showing most players wanted a more hybrid or arcade-leaning experience?

Where is the data showing casual players rejected deeper simulation systems?

Where is the data showing offline players did not matter?

Where is the data showing the people asking for clinching, referees, inside fighting, CPU vs CPU, deeper career, sliders, tendencies, and authentic boxer identity were only a small group?

Without data, “loud minority” is not a fact.

It is a narrative.

And that narrative benefits the company because it shifts the focus away from development decisions and onto the fans.

The Fans Did Not Build the Game

This is the part that needs to be said clearly:

The fans did not build Undisputed.

The fans did not remove the in-ring referee.

The fans did not leave clinching incomplete.

The fans did not underdevelop inside fighting.

The fans did not decide the career mode structure.

The fans did not create the movement problems.

The fans did not make boxers feel too similar.

The fans did not decide the AI depth.

The fans did not decide the lack of CPU vs CPU.

The fans did not choose which systems were prioritized.

Those were studio decisions.

So when Ash says SCI should have stuck to its guns more often, that raises another question:

Whose guns?

Was the original vision the ESBC-style realistic boxing simulation many fans believed in?

Or was the real vision always a safer hybrid game trying to please casuals, online players, content creators, and boxing fans all at once?

Because if the original vision was realism, then hardcore fans were not pulling the game away from that vision. They were trying to hold SCI accountable to it.

Hardcore Sports Fans Are Not Just a Minority — They Are the Foundation

In sports gaming, hardcore fans are often treated like they are too demanding. But the truth is, hardcore fans are usually the ones who keep sports games alive.

They are the ones testing the mechanics.

They are the ones creating sliders.

They are the ones building rosters.

They are the ones finding flaws in AI.

They are the ones making wishlists.

They are the ones keeping forums, leagues, and communities active.

They are the ones buying DLC when the game respects the sport.

Casual fans may create a sales spike.

Hardcore fans create longevity.

That is why dismissing them as a loud minority is dangerous. Even if they are not always the biggest group numerically, they are often the most important group for credibility, retention, feedback, and long-term support.

A boxing game especially needs hardcore fans because boxing has been starving for a serious game for over a decade. The people who kept asking for a real boxing game were not casual tourists. They were the community that kept the genre alive when major publishers walked away.

So why are those fans now being painted like the problem?

Who Is Controlling the Story?

This is where the investigation should go deeper.

Who is telling Ash Habib that hardcore fans are the loud minority?

Is that coming from actual player data?

Is that coming from Discord?

Is that coming from online ranked players?

Is that coming from content creators?

Is that coming from developers who wanted more accessible gameplay?

Is that coming from publisher pressure?

Is that coming from people who never wanted the game to lean fully into simulation?

Because somebody is painting the narrative.

Somebody is deciding which fans count.

Somebody is deciding which criticism is valid.

Somebody is deciding which voices get access and which voices get avoided.

Somebody is deciding that hardcore boxing fans are too loud, too difficult, or too small to shape the future of the game.

And that is exactly why the community needs independent data.

Not studio-controlled data.

Not handpicked feedback.

Not safe content creator interviews.

Not selective Discord conversations.

A real third-party survey.

Why Be Afraid of a Third-Party Survey?

This is the question SCI and its defenders should answer directly:

If hardcore simulation fans are truly just a loud minority, why be afraid of a proper third-party survey?

A real survey would clear everything up.

It would show who the audience is.

It would show what players actually want.

It would separate casual fans from hardcore boxing fans.

It would separate online players from offline players.

It would separate sports gamers from fighting game players.

It would separate people who want simulation from people who want arcade options.

It would show whether players want more sliders, deeper career, better AI, clinching, referees, inside fighting, CPU vs CPU, manager mode, promoter mode, and real boxer individuality.

If Ash is right, the survey proves him right.

If SCI’s direction is what most boxing fans want, the survey proves it.

If hardcore fans really are only a small loud group, the survey proves it.

So why not do it?

Why not silence the critics with numbers?

Why not let the community speak through structured data instead of vague labels?

Because right now, “loud minority” sounds less like a proven fact and more like a convenient excuse.

The Studio Survey Is Not Enough

A studio-controlled survey will never carry the same weight as an independent one.

The company controls the questions.

The company controls the framing.

The company controls what gets published.

The company controls what gets hidden.

The company controls how the results are interpreted.

That does not mean every studio survey is useless. But it does mean it cannot be the final authority when the studio itself is under criticism.

If SCI wants trust, the survey cannot feel curated.

It has to be independent.

It has to be transparent.

It has to be public.

It has to ask hard questions.

It has to let fans say whether Undisputed actually delivered on the promise of realistic boxing.

That is how you silence critics.

Not by calling them loud.

By proving them wrong.

The “Made by Boxing Fans” Claim Needs Receipts

If Undisputed was made by boxing fans for boxing fans, then the game should reflect boxing.

Not just licensed boxers.

Not just ring walks.

Not just sweat, swelling, and robes.

Not just punches and knockdowns.

Real boxing.

Clinching.

Inside fighting.

Referee control.

Styles.

Range.

Tendencies.

Fatigue.

Ring IQ.

Defense.

Adjustments.

Corner influence.

Judging logic.

Career politics.

Promoters.

Managers.

Sanctioning bodies.

Weight classes.

Risk.

Consequences.

A boxing game cannot claim authenticity just because it has boxing aesthetics. Authenticity has to live in the mechanics.

That is where Undisputed struggled.

And that is why the hardcore fans kept speaking up.

Final Word: Prove the Minority Claim or Stop Using It

At some point, the boxing game community has to stop letting phrases go unchallenged.

“Made by boxing fans for boxing fans” needs to be challenged.

“Loud minority” needs to be challenged.

“Authentic” needs to be challenged.

“Realistic” needs to be challenged.

“Simulation” needs to be challenged.

Because these words shape the narrative.

If hardcore boxing fans are a minority, prove it.

If casual fans are the real target, say that.

If the game is a hybrid, stop hiding behind simulation language.

If the studio made the wrong decisions, stop blaming the fans.

If SCI really wants to know what boxing fans want, then support a proper third-party survey and make the results public.

Until then, the “loud minority” claim is not evidence.

It is a talking point.

And the real question remains:

Was Undisputed truly made for boxing fans, or was it made for a version of boxing fans that allowed the studio to avoid building the full simulation the hardcore community was promised?

How You Get Hardcore Boxing Fans and Older Fans to Play a Boxing Video Game Without Dumbing It Down

To game companies and casual fans, this needs to be said clearly: you do not get hardcore boxing fans, older boxing fans, former boxers, real fight fans, and simulation-minded players to support a boxing video game by watering boxing down until it barely feels like boxing anymore.

You get them by respecting the sport.

That does not mean the game has to be boring. That does not mean every player has to study boxing for ten years before they can enjoy it. That does not mean casual fans should be pushed away. It means the game should be built with real boxing as the foundation, then give players options on top of that foundation.

The problem is not accessibility. The problem is when accessibility becomes an excuse to strip away boxing.

Hardcore boxing fans are not asking for a game that only they can play. They are asking for a game that represents boxing properly. There is a big difference.

A boxing video game should not be afraid of footwork, distance, timing, stamina, feints, clinching, inside fighting, defense, ring IQ, styles, tendencies, and consequences. Those things are not “too hardcore.” Those things are boxing.

If a company makes a basketball game, nobody says dribbling, spacing, shot timing, playbooks, and defensive schemes are too much. If a company makes a football game, nobody says routes, coverages, audibles, fatigue, and clock management are too much. But when hardcore boxing fans ask for real boxing systems, suddenly the industry acts like boxing has to be treated like a simple arcade fighting game.

That is the mistake.

Boxing is not just two people punching each other. Boxing is positioning. Boxing is rhythm. Boxing is control. Boxing is traps. Boxing is habits. Boxing is adjustments. Boxing is knowing when not to punch. Boxing is making a fighter miss by inches and making him pay for it. That is what older fans and hardcore fans want to feel.

The answer is not to force everyone into a hybrid game.

The answer is layers.

Give casual fans help, but do not take depth away from everyone else. Give new players tutorials, assists, smart controls, beginner settings, and guided learning. But do not make the entire game shallow just because some players are new.

A casual player should be able to pick up the controller and have fun. A hardcore player should be able to play for months or years and still be learning the deeper systems. That is how great sports games are built.

You get older boxing fans to play by giving them boxing they recognize.

They should see boxers moving like themselves. They should see styles matter. They should see a pressure fighter fight differently than a counterpuncher. They should see a slick boxer use angles, a slugger look dangerous but flawed, a defensive fighter make opponents miss, and a veteran manage rounds with ring intelligence.

They should see stamina punish reckless punching. They should see footwork matter. They should see clinching used properly. They should see inside fighting exist. They should see referees in the ring. They should see judges who score based on what actually happened. They should see corners giving useful instructions. They should see boxers with tendencies, strengths, weaknesses, traits, habits, and flaws.

That is how you win hardcore fans.

Not by saying “authenticity” in interviews while building a game that still leans arcade. Not by calling everything “balanced” while removing the consequences that make boxing strategic. Not by treating hardcore fans like a loud minority while using their passion to market the game.

Game companies need to understand this: hardcore fans are not the enemy of casual fans.

Hardcore fans are the ones who keep sports games alive. They are the ones who study the mechanics, create content, build communities, test the systems, buy DLC, make wishlists, expose flaws, and keep talking about the game long after casual players move on.

Casual fans may help with the first wave. Hardcore fans help with longevity.

So why would a company build a boxing game in a way that alienates the people most likely to support it for years?

The smarter approach is simple: build the game around realistic boxing, then create options for different player types.

Have a casual mode. Have a hybrid mode. Have a simulation mode. Have sliders. Have assists. Have rule sets. Have online filters. Have offline customization. Let players choose how they want to play.

Do not make the whole game one forced compromise.

Casual fans should not be scared of a deeper boxing game either. A realistic boxing game can actually make a casual fan become a hardcore fan. That is what good sports games do. They teach the sport through gameplay. They help people understand why footwork matters, why stamina matters, why styles make fights, why timing beats speed, and why ring IQ is just as important as power.

Dumbing the game down does not help casual fans respect boxing. It teaches them a fake version of boxing.

The goal should be accessibility without disrespecting depth.

That means better tutorials. Better practice modes. Better training gyms. Better explanations of boxing concepts. Better difficulty settings. Better AI. Better visual feedback. Better onboarding. Let a new player learn why they got countered, why they got tired, why they lost rounds, why they could not cut off the ring, and why throwing 300 power punches should have consequences.

That is not boring. That is education through gameplay.

A true boxing game should not punish players for wanting depth. It should reward them for learning.

Hardcore fans and older fans do not want a game that plays itself. They want a game where decisions matter. They want to feel the difference between fighting reckless and fighting smart. They want a game where a jab can control a fight, where defense can win rounds, where body work pays off later, where a boxer’s identity matters, and where every fighter does not feel like the same character with a different face.

That is where boxing games have to evolve.

The industry has to stop acting like realism and fun are enemies. They are not. Realism becomes fun when the systems are built correctly. Depth becomes fun when players have the tools to learn it. Simulation becomes fun when the game respects the sport and gives players control.

The real question is not, “How do we make boxing simple enough for everyone?”

The real question is, “How do we build a boxing game deep enough to respect the sport, but layered enough so anyone can learn it?”

That is the difference between a shallow boxing product and a long-term boxing platform.

If game companies want hardcore boxing fans, older fans, former boxers, boxing historians, offline players, sim players, and casual fans under one roof, stop forcing one watered-down identity on everybody.

Build the foundation on boxing.

Then give players options.

That is how you respect the hardcore fan without scaring away the casual fan. That is how you make a game that lasts. That is how you build a boxing video game community instead of just selling a boxing-themed fighting game.

Thursday, June 11, 2026

Investigative Article: Ash Habib’s Interview Raises More Questions Than It Answers About Undisputed, SCI, and the Boxing Game Community

My response to Mike Straw interview(Insider Gaming). Please support Mike Straw interview/article

Investigative Article: Ash Habib’s Interview Raises More Questions Than It Answers About Undisputed, SCI, and the Boxing Game Community

There are many things people can pick apart in Mike Straw’s interview with Steel City Interactive owner Ash Habib. The interview was supposed to give insight into what SCI learned from Undisputed, but for many hardcore boxing game fans, it exposed the same problem that has followed the game from ESBC to Undisputed: the messaging does not line up with the product, the development direction, or the way the hardcore boxing community has been treated.

The biggest statement that deserves scrutiny is the familiar claim that Undisputed was made “by boxing fans, for boxing fans.” That sounds good as a marketing line, but the game itself has often told a different story. A game truly built by knowledgeable boxing people should not have launched without a full in-ring referee, proper clinching, deep inside fighting, realistic stamina logic, deeper ring generalship, authentic boxer identity, better punch consequences, better ropes logic, and a career ecosystem that reflects the actual sport of boxing.

Those are not small details. Those are foundational boxing details.

That is why the “made by boxing fans” claim feels false to many in the community. It is not that nobody at SCI likes boxing. The issue is that liking boxing is not the same as understanding boxing deeply enough to build a realistic simulation of it. Many decisions in Undisputed made it look like key people involved either did not understand the sport, did not understand what hardcore boxing fans were asking for, or allowed newer developers to pull the game in a direction that moved away from the original ESBC promise.

The “Loud Minority” Problem

One of the most questionable parts of the interview is the framing of hardcore fans as a loud minority.

This is where the logic starts falling apart.

SCI marketed Undisputed as authentic. SCI marketed it as realistic. SCI used the language of simulation. SCI built the early hype around the idea that this would not just be another arcade fighting game with boxing gloves. The hardcore boxing fans were not random outsiders demanding something strange. They were the people who believed the original promise.

So why are those same fans now being framed like a problem?

If the hardcore community asked for more realism, more boxing logic, deeper mechanics, better options, and more authentic systems, that should not be treated as noise. That should be treated as the core audience doing exactly what SCI’s marketing invited them to do.

Calling them hardcore fans on one hand, then implying they are a loud minority on the other, sends a mixed message. Are they the foundation of the game’s identity, or are they the inconvenience that SCI feels it listened to too much?

You cannot sell a game on authenticity, realism, and boxing knowledge, then turn around and suggest that the people demanding those very things are the reason the direction became difficult.

Blaming the Fans Avoids the Real Issue

The interview presents the idea that SCI tried to please too many people and should have stuck to its vision more often. But that explanation leaves out one major point: options exist for this exact reason.

If one group wants a more realistic experience and another group wants faster, easier, more arcade-friendly gameplay, the solution should not be to blame the fans. The solution is to build proper options, sliders, rule sets, and gameplay lanes.

That is what serious sports games do.

A boxing game could have had a casual lane, a hybrid lane, and a simulation lane. It could have had stamina sliders, damage sliders, referee sliders, clinch sliders, AI behavior sliders, punch tracking sliders, movement sliders, judging sliders, and online rule contracts. The problem was never that the community had different play styles. The problem was that SCI did not build enough structure to support those different play styles.

That is not the fans’ fault.

That is a design leadership issue.

When a studio makes one global gameplay change to satisfy one group, then another group gets upset, that is not proof that the fans are impossible to please. That is proof that the game lacked the necessary systems to separate play styles. A deep boxing game should not force everyone into one universal tuning philosophy.

“Sticking to the Vision” Only Works If the Vision Was Clear

Ash Habib saying SCI should have “stuck to its guns” sounds strong on the surface, but it raises a bigger question: what exactly was the vision?

Was the vision a realistic boxing simulation?

Was the vision a competitive online fighting game?

Was the vision an accessible sports title for casual players?

Was the vision a hybrid?

Was the vision changed after newer developers entered the picture?

This matters because many fans believe the game shifted away from the original ESBC identity. Early ESBC created expectations of a more authentic, deeper, more simulation-focused boxing experience. But Undisputed later became something that often felt caught between realism, arcade accessibility, online balancing, and incomplete systems.

That is why the “we should have stuck to our vision” argument feels incomplete. If the vision was realism, then hardcore fans were not pulling SCI away from it. They were trying to pull SCI back toward it.

The fans did not remove clinching. The fans did not remove the in-ring referee. The fans did not build shallow inside fighting. The fans did not create universal loose movement. The fans did not decide that every boxer should feel too similar in key areas. The fans did not decide the depth of career mode, creation tools, AI tendencies, or presentation systems.

Those were development decisions.

The Deontay Wilder Example Does Not Explain the Bigger Problem

The Wilder overhand issue is being used as an example of the difficulty of balancing the game. Yes, online exploits are real. Yes, some players will abuse powerful mechanics. Yes, some people react poorly when their exploit is patched. Death threats are disgusting and should never be excused.

But one toxic reaction from a portion of players should not become a shield against legitimate criticism.

The Wilder situation does not explain why the game lacked major boxing systems. It does not explain why offline fans felt underserved. It does not explain why the career ecosystem was not deeper. It does not explain why CPU vs CPU, deeper tendencies, referee presence, clinching, realistic ring cutting, and boxer individuality were not where they needed to be.

Balancing one boxer’s overhand is not the same as building a complete boxing simulation.

SCI cannot use the most extreme behavior from angry players to dismiss the broader hardcore community’s serious concerns. The community asking for a better boxing game is not the same as people sending threats. Those groups should not be blended together.

The Poe Factor: Why the Silence Feels Political

Another thing that deserves attention is the lack of communication with Poe and other hardcore boxing game voices who have consistently pushed for a more realistic boxing game.

Poe has been one of the loudest, most consistent, and most detailed voices in the boxing video game community. He has decades of gaming experience, real boxing experience, community leadership experience, and a long public record of breaking down what a serious boxing game needs. He has criticized SCI, but criticism is not the same as bad faith.

By his account, he and Ash Habib never had a bad personal interaction. That makes the lack of communication even more interesting. When someone with boxing experience, gaming experience, and a deep blueprint for the genre is ignored, it creates questions.

Was Ash advised not to engage?

Did someone inside or around SCI frame Poe as a problem?

Did SCI prefer safer voices who would not challenge the direction of the game as hard?

There may be no public proof that someone “got into Ash’s ear,” so that should not be stated as fact. But the perception is understandable. When a company avoids one of the most detailed hardcore voices while claiming to care about the boxing community, people are going to question why.

If SCI truly wants to understand the hardcore boxing audience, avoiding Poe makes little sense.

The Real Issue: SCI Listened Selectively

The interview makes it sound like SCI listened too much. But many hardcore fans would argue the opposite: SCI listened selectively.

They may have listened to some gameplay complaints. They may have reacted to online pressure. They may have adjusted certain systems based on immediate backlash. But did they truly listen to the deeper boxing simulation community?

Did they listen to the people asking for a real in-ring referee?

Did they listen to the people asking for clinching and inside fighting?

Did they listen to the people asking for CPU vs CPU?

Did they listen to the people asking for deeper AI tendencies and boxer individuality?

Did they listen to the people asking for a true career ecosystem?

Did they listen to the people asking for creation depth, sliders, offline options, and authentic boxing presentation?

That is the difference between reacting and listening.

Reacting to complaints is not the same as building from a clear boxing philosophy.

Options Would Have Protected the Vision

The most frustrating part is that SCI did not have to choose between casuals and hardcore fans. A well-designed boxing game could serve both without compromising the identity of either.

That is what options are for.

If some players want faster stamina recovery, give them a casual setting.

If hardcore fans want punishing stamina, realistic damage, slower footwork, clinch-heavy fights, strict referees, and deeper judging, give them a simulation setting.

If online players want balance, create ranked rule sets.

If offline players want realism, give them full control.

If content creators want chaos, let them create custom fight cards and arcade-style matchups.

If purists want boxing, let them box.

The problem was not that fans wanted different things. The problem was that Undisputed did not provide enough lanes for those different audiences.

The Question SCI Still Has Not Answered

The biggest unanswered question from the interview is simple:

Who exactly is Undisputed for?

If it is for boxing fans, then why are hardcore boxing fans treated like the difficult crowd?

If it is realistic and authentic, then why are so many core boxing systems missing or underdeveloped?

If the issue was trying to please everyone, why were there not more options to separate different audiences?

If Ash should have stuck to his vision, what was that vision, and who changed it?

If the developers made the decisions, why are the fans being positioned as the reason the game lost direction?

Those are fair questions. They are not hate. They are not toxicity. They are accountability.

Final Word

Mike Straw’s interview with Ash Habib did not close the book on Undisputed. It opened more pages.

The interview suggests SCI learned that it cannot please everyone. But hardcore boxing fans have been saying something more specific: stop trying to make one version of boxing satisfy everyone. Build the proper systems. Build the proper options. Build the proper simulation lane. Let casuals have their fun, but do not sacrifice the sport to chase everybody at once.

The hardcore fans did not ruin Undisputed. The hardcore fans warned SCI about the direction.

The fans did not make the game incomplete. The fans did not remove major boxing systems. The fans did not decide the final identity. The fans did not force SCI to blur the line between simulation, hybrid, and arcade.

SCI made those decisions.

If Ash Habib wants to stick to his guns moving forward, then the first step is making clear what those guns actually are. If the vision is authentic boxing, then SCI needs to stop framing hardcore boxing fans like a problem and start treating them like the audience that understood the assignment from the beginning.

Because a true boxing simulation is not built by blaming the fans who asked for boxing.

It is built by listening to the right ones.