Why Some Developers and Gamers Use the Release Date as the Only Measurement, and Why It’s Wrong

---

Why Some Developers and Gamers Use the Release Date as the Only Measurement, and Why It’s Wrong

Most people judge a game by its release date because it’s the one moment they see. It’s the moment the game becomes public, the moment marketing pushes it, and the moment the industry says, “Here is the final product—judge it.”
But that’s an illusion. It erases everything that happened before that date.

1. Fans and devs often treat the release date as the “start,” because it’s the first time the public interacts with the game.

For most players, the project doesn’t exist until the trailer drops or the game goes live.
To them, January 31, 2023, is when Undisputed “began.”

But that ignores three years of decisions, pivots, mismanagement, leadership changes, delays, asset swaps, tech choices, and community promises that shaped what the public eventually saw.

If the process was flawed, the product was inevitably going to be flawed—regardless of the release date.

2. The development cycle is the game.

A game isn’t magically born on release day.
A release date is the culmination of years of:

• Vision building

• Engine selection

• System design

• Asset production

• Outsourcing decisions

• Budget and investor pressure

• Team hiring

• Feature prioritization and feature cuts

• Community management

• And countless “we’ll fix it later” choices

Judging Undisputed only by 2023 ignores the fact that the foundation was laid in 2020, and that foundation determined everything that followed.

3. Studios hide behind release dates to avoid accountability.

Many studios—SCI included—use the release date as a shield:

“We released in 2023, so that’s what the game is.”

No.
What the game is represents:

• How they handled 2020

• How transparent they were in 2021

• How polished their early builds were in 2022

• How many systems did they rewrite or abandon

• How they responded when fans raised valid concerns years before release

• How they staffed, who they hired, who they lost

When you judge from 2020 to 2023, you see the whole story—not the marketing-friendly one.

4. Fans fall into the same trap because they weren’t paying attention early.

Casual fans tuned in during 2023.
Hardcore boxing gamers were watching in 2020, 2021, 2022—and saw the drastic shifts in tone, quality, gameplay philosophy, and company behavior.

When people only look at the release date, they erase:

• The original simulation vision

• The Ten24-quality models

• The realistic movement test footage

• The community-led development approach

• The early transparency SCI used to build hype

• The massive pivot away from the promised game

You only see the “present,” not the broken promises.

5. The real measurement is the lifespan of development, not the moment of release.

A release date is simply:

• Marketing

• Publishing

• A timestamp

But development is:

• Vision

• Execution

• Philosophy

• Integrity

• Skill

• Management

• Follow-through

If a studio had three years to build something and delivered far less than they marketed, that’s a development failure, not a “release day problem.”

6. Using only the release date helps studios rewrite history.

SCI can say:

“We only worked on this in 2023.”

But everyone who followed the project knows:

• ESBC was revealed in 2020

• The hype was built on 2020–2021 footage

• The early mechanics were better than the final result

• The studio had years of feedback, warnings, and opportunities

• The decline didn’t happen after release—it happened before

Release-day judging helps them erase their own timeline and pretend the problems happened suddenly.

The truth: Undisputed is a 2020–2023 project, not a 2023 project.

You cannot judge a game by the day it “arrived”—you judge it by:

• How it started

• How it evolved

• What promises changed

• What the team prioritized

• What systems they cut or replaced

• What direction they shifted toward

And all of that happened way before 2023.

People use the release date as the measurement because it’s the only moment they see it. But a game’s quality is shaped by its entire development cycle. ESBC/Undisputed was built from 2020–2023. Every decision in those years determined the final product, so judging it by the release date alone hides the real story behind its problems.

---

 

Why Unreal Engine 5.7 Could Finally Give Boxing Video Games the Intelligence and Authenticity They’ve Been Missing

And How a Proper System of Tendencies, Traits, Capabilities & Attributes Would Build Real Boxing Minds in the Ring

By Poe — Think Tank Newsletter

For decades, boxing fans have been told the same story:
“Boxing games are too hard to make.”
“Simulation doesn’t sell.”
“Casual players will never understand a deep boxing system.”

Reality has proven the opposite.
Fans showed incredible hunger for realism the moment the Undisputed Alpha Footage hit the internet. The problem wasn’t the audience—it was the execution. The systems weren’t there. The vision drifted. The AI foundation never evolved. And the engine felt like it was being pushed beyond its limits.

But the landscape has shifted.
And Unreal Engine 5.7 changes everything.

Today’s players want authenticity. Not arcade disguises. Not hybrid illusions. Authenticity. And UE 5.7 finally gives developers the horsepower, pipelines, and tools to make that possible—even for a complex sport like boxing.

But technology alone isn’t enough.
The other half of the equation is intelligence—brining boxers to life through tendencies, traits, capabilities, and attributes.

This article lays out exactly how a modern boxing game could evolve using the right engine and the right design philosophy.

---

1. How Unreal Engine 5.7 Finally Removes the Technical Excuses

UE 5.7 isn’t a buzzword—it solves real problems.

Nanite → Authentic boxer scans without downgrade

Ten24-level fidelity can finally be used at full resolution. Pores, wrinkles, swelling, scars—no more waxy faces or flattened scans.

Lumen → Real broadcast lighting

Dynamic arena lighting, sweat shine, flash photography, and cinematic shadows without pre-baked hacks.

Chaos Physics → Real punches, real reactions, real clinches

Ropes act like ropes. Bodies collide with weight. Shorts move. Punch reactions aren’t guesswork—they’re physically grounded.

Motion Matching → Footwork that looks and feels like actual boxing

Directional pivots. Lateral bounces. Rhythm changes. No stiffness. No robotic stepping.

Niagara + MetaSounds → A sensory experience that feels alive

Breathing. Sweat spray. Blood particles. Crowd surges. Punch thuds that change with distance and fatigue.

State Trees + Behavior Trees + GAS → Boxers that think, adapt, and strategize

This is where simulation finally meets intelligence.

Unreal gives developers the canvas.
The next section explains the paint.

---

2. The Real Secret: Building Boxer Intelligence Through Profiles

Boxers aren’t just stats—they’re identities.
To represent them properly, you need four interconnected layers:

---

2.1 Attributes — The Physical Reality

Attributes define what a boxer is physically:

• Power

• Chin

• Reflexes

• Hand speed

• Stamina

• Recovery

• Footwork agility

• Damage resistance

Every punch, every reaction, every animation is influenced by these physical traits.

---

2.2 Capabilities — The Skills They’ve Mastered

Capabilities determine what the boxer can actually do:

• Shoulder roll mastery

• Elite inside fighting

• Pull counters (Basic → Elite)

• Switch stance ability

• High-level ring cutting

• Advanced feints

• Professional clinching

This is where identity comes from.
Not everyone should fight like everyone else.

---

2.3 Traits — The Personality and Psychological DNA

Traits determine how a boxer behaves under pressure:

• Gets Mean When Hurt

• Front Runner

• Slow Starter

• Ice Cold

• Body Snatcher

• Crowd Feeder

Traits create emotional realism:

• Some fighters panic.

• Some fighters become monsters when hurt.

• Some crumble when the crowd turns.

• Others don’t flinch at all.

These are the stories boxing fans know.

---

2.4 Tendencies — The Actual Brain of the Boxer

Tendencies are the decision-making map:

• Jab frequency

• Counterpunch willingness

• Body vs. head ratio

• Combo length

• Pressure intensity

• Defensive preference (Slip / Block / Step-back / Clinch)

• Adaptability

• Risk-taking

• Footwork rhythm

• Feint usage

• Ring-cutting aggression

• Strategy changes when behind or ahead

These are stored as hundreds of sliders, read by the AI in real time.

---

3. How It All Works Together Inside Unreal 5.7

Everything feeds into two core systems:

State Trees → Moment-to-moment awareness

“I’m hurt.”
“I’m winning.”
“I’m being countered.”
“My opponent is slowing down.”

Behavior Trees → Decision selection

“Slip and counter.”
“Cut off the ring.”
“Go downstairs.”
“Clinch.”
“Trade back.”
“Change rhythm.”

Gameplay Ability System → Execution

Each punch, slip, pivot, and defensive response is an ability influenced by:

• attributes

• capabilities

• tendencies

• traits
  and even fatigue + damage states.

Boxers don’t just “fight.”
They think, adjust, hesitate, press, adapt, crumble, and rise.

That’s boxing.

---

4. The Result: Distinct, Real, and Memorable Boxers

With this system:

• Ali floats and improvises.

• Tyson detonates bombs at close range.

• Foreman feels like a wrecking crane.

• Mayweather slips first, counters second.

• Chávez tracks you down like a hunter.

• Inoue blends cold precision with explosive aggression.

• Ward adapts to your habits and dismantles them.

Not because of marketing.
Not because of animations.
But because their boxing intelligence exists inside the engine.

This is what the sport deserves.
This is what developers can deliver.
And Unreal 5.7 makes it not just possible—but efficient.

---

5. The Bottom Line for Developers, Publishers, and Boxers

Boxing is too deep to fake.

You can’t disguise an arcade as a simulation and expect fans not to notice.

Unreal Engine 5.7 solves the technical ceiling.

The excuses fade. The opportunities multiply.

A real boxing intelligence system solves everything else.

Authenticity → sells
Depth → keeps players
Identity → honors the sport
Consistency → builds trust
Personality → creates memorable fights

Fans aren’t running from realism.
They’ve been begging for it.

And now the tools—and the blueprint—exist.

---

Follow Poe’s Think Tank

I break down:

• Advanced boxing game systems

• AI frameworks for combat sports

• Industry strategy

• Unreal Engine design models

• Community-focused development approaches

Real boxing. Real simulation. Real solutions.

If you found value in this, share it.
Developers, boxers, and studios need to hear it.

 

Why Arcade Boxing Games Don’t Sell, And How “Hybrids” Became the Industry’s Most Misleading Escape Hatch

Arcade Boxing Games Do Not Sell — And History Proves It

For decades, companies have pushed the false idea that “arcade boxing sells” or that “simulation limits your audience.” The sales history of boxing video games proves the exact opposite.

No arcade boxing game—not one—has ever sold over a million copies in a week. Not one has sold over a million copies in its entire modern lifespan.

And when companies pretend they’re making a “hybrid,” it’s almost always a disguised arcade game with light sim elements sprinkled in.

---

1. Correcting the Record: Arcade Boxing Games Have Never Sold Well

Here are the factual corrections and clarifications:

A. Classic Arcade Boxing Machines (1970s–1990s)

• Measured by coin-drop revenue, not game units.
• Even the biggest successes like Punch-Out!! (arcade) were popular machines, not chart-topping software.
• They generated good arcade income but not home console sales.

No credible sales numbers exist for these as “copies sold,” because they weren’t sold like modern games.

---

B. Ready 2 Rumble Boxing (Dreamcast/PS1, 1999)

Often cited as the “successful arcade boxing game.”

Reality check:

• Combined lifetime sales are estimated at around 1 million across all platforms.
• Never hit 1M on a single system.
• Never hit high chart positions outside Dreamcast’s tiny market.
• The franchise collapsed after the sequel flopped.

It was never a blockbuster. It was “moderately successful” at best—and short-lived.

---

C. Creed: Rise to Glory (VR)

Modern arcade-style example.

Actual performance:

• An estimated 300K–600K lifetime across all VR platforms.
• Never charted top-10 on major storefronts.
• Despite the Rocky/Creed brand, it remained niche.

This proves that even licensed arcade boxing cannot break through.

---

D. Big Rumble Boxing: Creed Champions

• Pure arcade gameplay.
• Bombed commercially.
• Low review scores.
• Very low player base on any platform.
• Zero reported corporate sales numbers → usually means poor performance.

This game shows that arcade boxing is unmarketable even with Hollywood backing.

---

2. Meanwhile: Hybrid-Driven Boxing Titles Were Commercial Hits

Fight Night Round 3

• Over 3+ million lifetime sales.
• Critically acclaimed.
• Used realism, physics, timing, weight, and footwork.

Fight Night Champion

• ~2 million lifetime, still selling digitally.
• Praised for hybrid lean into arcade, somewhat authenticity, and questionable AI depth.

EA didn’t get these sales numbers by being fully arcade. They got them by leaning into hybrid/simulation features, presentation, physics, and a somewhat authentic boxing feel.

---

🥊 3. The EA “Hybrid” Myth: How They Slowly Shifted Toward Arcade Design

This is the most important correction to the historical narrative.

EA did move toward a more arcade-leaning direction after Fight Night Round 3:

A. In the mid-late Fight Night era, EA pushed a “hybrid” identity

But this hybrid was:

• 90% arcade
• 10% simulation flavor
• Packaged as “accessibility” and “fun”
• Hidden behind optional toggles like:

B. EA disguised arcade elements as “options”

They would say:

“We offer a hybrid, realistic for sim fans, arcade for casual fans.”

But in practice:

• Core mechanics stayed arcade-like.
• Movement was simplified.
• Punch animations were exaggerated.
• Physics was loosened.
• Timings became more “gamey” than technical.

The “simulation options” were cosmetic. The “arcade mode” was basically the default game, just renamed.

This is the deceptive tactic you’re referring to: They didn't make a real hybrid. They made an arcade game disguised as a hybrid, because calling a boxing game “arcade” scares some investors and fans.

---

🥊 4. Why Companies Lie About Making Arcade Boxing Games

This is where the truth comes out:

A. Arcade boxing has no financial history of success.

Publishers know:

• Arcade doesn’t sell.
• Pure arcade never cracked the multi-million dollar success.
• Even big brands like Creed can’t push arcade boxing above niche-level sales.

B. Simulation, like boxing, has proven success.

• Fight Night Round 3(hybrid/arcade)
• Fight Night Champion(hybrid/arcade)
• Undisputed’s viral alpha footage (1M+ views)
• Studies and analytics show authenticity drives engagement.

C. So companies do this instead:

1. Build an arcade boxing game internally (cheaper, easier, faster).
2. Call it a “hybrid” to make it sound "balanced" and accessible.
3. Add tiny “simulation sprinkles” to pacify hardcore fans.
4. Market those sprinkles as “deep sim features.”
5. Hide arcade elements inside phrases like:

It’s a marketing illusion or authentic.

---

5. My Final Point I'm Proving

Arcade boxing games have never sold well, not historically, not in modern gaming, and not even with strong branding like Creed. Every major sales success in boxing has come from simulation-focused games. EA transitioned to a deceptive hybrid model where arcade mechanics were disguised as accessibility features and mislabeled as ‘options,’ but the core gameplay remained arcade-leaning. Companies keep pretending to make hybrids because the word ‘arcade’ is a sales deterrent, and because arcade boxing titles have no proven demand or financial history to justify their existence.”

“Dear Publishers: Stop Hiding Arcade Boxing Behind the Word ‘Hybrid’”

To every developer and publisher considering a boxing title:

It’s time to stop misleading the community. It’s time to stop rewriting history. And it’s time to stop disguising arcade boxing as something it isn’t.

For decades, the industry has pushed the same false narrative: “Simulation limits the audience.” “Arcade is accessible.” “Hybrid gameplay lets us reach both sides.”

Yet no arcade boxing game in history has ever sold well enough to justify that belief.

Not one.

Meanwhile, every major hit — from Fight Night Round 3 to Fight Night Champion — achieved its success by leaning into realism, authenticity, and technical depth.

Fans didn’t flock to arcade boxing. They flocked to boxing, that somewhat respected boxing.

When companies build arcade games and label them “hybrids,” they aren’t being creative. They’re being evasive.

EA’s later Fight Night entries proved this:

• Arcade mechanics under the hood
• Simulation “options” on the surface
• And an “arcade mode” was slapped in as camouflage

That deception damaged trust and stalled the genre for a decade.

Today’s boxing fans are smarter. They analyze frame data. They study tendencies. They demand authenticity because they love the sport.

We don’t need “hybrids” that pretend to be both things at once. We need games with a clear identity — and the courage to commit to realism, instead of hiding arcade design under marketing language.

Publishers:

If you want to win this space, the path is not nostalgia for arcade machines. It’s not an imitation of old coin-op designs. It’s not disguising fast, floaty gameplay as “modern boxing.”

The path is simple:

Respect the sport. Respect the players. Respect the history. And stop pretending arcade boxing is financially viable or creatively honest.

Simulation is where the sales are. Simulation is where the fans are. Simulation is where the future is.

Sincerely, A community that’s tired of the façade.