Showing posts with label nintendo. Show all posts

Monday, September 29, 2025

“Boxing Fans Don’t Know What They Want”? The Biggest Deception in Sports Gaming

“Boxing Fans Don’t Know What They Want”? – The Biggest Deception in Sports Gaming

Introduction: A Dangerous Narrative

In the world of boxing video games, there’s been a troubling statement echoing through forums, developer interviews, and casual fan circles: “Boxing fans don’t know what they want.”

At first glance, it may sound like a harmless observation. But when you dig deeper, it’s clear this narrative is a form of deception—a framing tactic used to discredit hardcore fans, excuse shallow design choices, and shift responsibility away from developers who aren’t delivering the authenticity the sport deserves.

Hardcore Boxing Fans Know Exactly What They Want

For years, boxing fans—especially the hardcore base—have been clear and consistent about their expectations for a true simulation boxing experience. The demands are not vague, nor are they unrealistic. They include:

Authentic Stats, Ratings, and Tendencies
Every boxer should feel unique, with ratings that reflect their styles and tendencies, not cookie-cutter clones.
Unique Animations and Movement
A heavyweight shouldn’t move like a lightweight. Footwork, punch mechanics, and defensive styles must mirror real-world boxing.
Core Mechanics: Referees and Clinching
Referees policing the ring, clinch battles, and stamina management aren’t “extra features.” They’re fundamental to the sport.
Deep Creation Suites and AI Systems
The ability to create boxers, gyms, and tendencies while building a living ecosystem is key to long-term replay value.

These are not moving targets. Hardcore fans have been spelling this out since the Fight Night Champion era—over a decade ago.

Why Developers Push the “Fans Don’t Know” Narrative

So why do some developers and casual fans push the idea that boxing fans don’t know what they want?

Deflection of Responsibility
It’s easier to claim the fanbase is “confused” than to admit the development team is cutting corners or prioritizing flash over substance.
Investor & Publisher Optics
By painting hardcore fans as indecisive, developers can justify making games for casual audiences, who are perceived as larger, easier to sell to, and less demanding.
Gaslighting the Hardcore Base
If hardcore fans are told they don’t know what they want, they may start second-guessing themselves, eventually accepting diluted, arcade-leaning products.

The Reality: Hardcore Fans Have Always Been the Backbone

The truth is undeniable: hardcore boxing fans know exactly what they want, and they’ve been consistent for years. What’s more, the hardcore base has shown:

Longevity – They stick around long after casual fans drift away.
Spending Power – Hardcore players invest in DLC, creation tools, and customization.
Community Building – They keep forums, YouTube channels, Discord servers, and blogs alive with content, discussions, and ideas.

In short, they are the foundation of any successful boxing videogame. Ignoring them is short-sighted and self-destructive.

The Cost of This Deception

When developers buy into the narrative that fans “don’t know what they want,” they make short-term design choices that undermine long-term success:

Shallow mechanics that casual fans tire of quickly
Copy-paste boxers with no unique traits
Cosmetic-driven DLC with little gameplay depth
A lack of replay value and lasting engagement

The result? Fans lose trust, and the game loses relevance—fast.

Conclusion: The Truth Can’t Be Buried

Boxing fans are not confused. They’re not indecisive. They’re not asking for the impossible.

They want a game that respects the sport, its history, and its complexity. A game that feels alive with unique boxers, authentic mechanics, and deep systems that reward dedication.

When someone says “boxing fans don’t know what they want”, recognize it for what it is: deception at a high level. The truth is simple—fans have known what they want all along. It’s the developers and decision-makers who keep pretending otherwise.

🔥 Final Word: Boxing fans do know what they want—and if developers don’t start listening, the community will keep holding them accountable until someone finally delivers the authentic simulation boxing game we’ve been demanding for over a decade.

Sunday, September 28, 2025

Why a Tier System Disrespects Realistic Boxing Videogames

Introduction: When Authenticity Is Sacrificed

Boxing is one of the most nuanced sports in the world. Every punch, feint, angle, and adjustment can swing the outcome of a fight. Fans don’t come to a realistic boxing videogame to see their favorite boxers flattened into arcade-style categories like “S-Tier” or “A-Tier.” Yet, that’s exactly the direction some developers—like Steel City Interactive (SCI)—appear willing to take.

Adding a tier system instead of a ratings system is not just lazy design; it’s a sign of disrespect toward the boxing community, especially the hardcore fans who crave authenticity.

The Flaws of a Tier System

Tier systems may work for arcade fighters or fantasy games where balance overrides realism. But boxing doesn’t fit into such neat boxes. Here’s why:

Oversimplification of Styles
Boxing isn’t about one boxer being “better” across the board. A slick counter-puncher may dismantle an aggressive slugger despite having a lower perceived “tier.”
Elimination of Context
Styles make fights. A boxer’s effectiveness depends on the matchup, not a blanket letter grade.
Arcade Framing
Tiers imply “pick the stronger character,” which is anti-simulation. Fans don’t want Mike Tyson slapped into “S-Tier” while a Hall of Fame technician gets demoted to “B-Tier.”

Ultimately, a tier system erases the very soul of boxing: strategy, adaptability, and style clashes.

Ratings: Imperfect but Authentic

Yes, ratings can be subjective. Stats can be debated. But ratings respect the sport because they attempt to measure real attributes:

Speed, Power, Accuracy
Footwork, Reflexes, Defense
Conditioning, Recovery, Stamina
Ring IQ and Adaptability

With ratings, two boxers can share the same overall score but fight completely differently because of stat distribution. That’s the heart of realism—styles shaping outcomes.

Ratings also create discussion: fans argue whether a jab should be rated a 92 or a 94. That’s healthy, because it keeps the conversation grounded in boxing itself rather than arcade shorthand.

SCI’s Dangerous Gamble

If SCI replaces ratings with tiers, here’s what happens:

Hardcore fans leave. These are the ones who buy every DLC, invest long-term, and evangelize the game.
Casuals don’t benefit. A tier system won’t teach them boxing; it will only tell them “pick this character.”
Credibility collapses. Hardcore fans already feel SCI is drifting toward arcade. A tier system cements that perception.

It also doesn’t help that the wrong people appear to be in charge of ratings—individuals who may not be true students of boxing. Fans can see through it, and trust erodes fast.

The Smarter Alternative

Instead of disrespecting the sport, SCI (or any boxing dev team) should:

Keep Ratings, Add Transparency
Show how stats are calculated. Use Compubox, historical fight data, and panels of real boxing experts.
Expand With Traits & Tendencies
Go beyond ratings—give boxers tendencies (aggressive, defensive, counter-focused) and traits (iron chin, stamina, clutch mentality).
Involve the Community
Hardcore fans, trainers, and analysts should validate ratings. Involving them ensures authenticity and loyalty.

Conclusion: Respect the Sweet Science

Boxing is a sport of details, and fans demand that those details be reflected in a videogame. A tier system is disrespectful to the sport and its fan base. Ratings—when done right, with transparency and expertise—honor boxing’s complexity and keep both casuals and hardcore players engaged.

Developers must choose: Will they respect boxing with authenticity, or reduce it to an arcade spectacle?

The Great Divide: Why Casual Fans Embrace Arcade Combos but Want Boxing Dumbed Down

Introduction

Casual players often have two different standards when it comes to gaming. In arcade fighting games, they accept—and even celebrate—long combo strings, tricky button sequences, and the practice required to master them. Yet, when it comes to sports games like boxing, those same players suddenly demand simplicity, shortcuts, and “pick-up-and-play” controls. This contradiction explains why so many sports titles get watered down into arcade experiences, and why hardcore fans keep feeling left behind.

Arcade Fighting Games: Complexity Is the Point

For decades, games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, and Guilty Gear have thrived on complexity.

Players expect to spend hours in training mode memorizing quarter-circle inputs, cancel chains, and special move timings.
Execution is seen as a skill barrier that separates casuals from experts.
The community even celebrates this—learning combos is part of the fun, not a flaw.

Even casual fans of these titles accept that they might not master everything. They still play because the culture of arcade fighters values depth through execution.

Sports Games: Where Simplicity Is Demanded

When those same fans play a sports game like boxing, however, the tone changes. Suddenly, complexity is “too much work.”

Instead of accepting practice, casuals want the game to be immediately accessible.
They often request dumbed-down mechanics, where pressing one button should always deliver a flashy, effective punch.
The expectation shifts from “I need to practice to improve” to “the game should make me feel good right away.”

The irony is obvious: they’ll memorize a 12-hit string in Mortal Kombat, but complain about realistic timing, stamina, or footwork systems in a boxing game.

Why This Disconnect Exists

Perception of Genre
- Arcade fighters are expected to be games first. Sports sims are expected to be realistic first. Casuals unconsciously hold sports titles to a different standard.
Illusion of Accessibility
- Developers often believe simplifying makes sports games “easier.” But in truth, it creates a different barrier: the game no longer feels authentic to the sport, which alienates hardcore fans and eventually casuals too.
False Comfort
- Casuals think they want shortcuts in boxing games because realism feels intimidating. But they don’t realize depth built on realism is more learnable than memorizing artificial combos.

The Hardcore Perspective

Hardcore boxing fans know the sport’s depth doesn’t come from pressing more buttons. It comes from:

Timing and rhythm (throwing when it matters, not spamming).
Stamina and fatigue management (energy is finite, just like in real boxing).
Footwork and positioning (being in range matters as much as the punch itself).
Defensive IQ (slipping, rolling, blocking, countering).

A true boxing sim shouldn’t force you to memorize “combo strings” like an arcade fighter. Instead, it should reward sport IQ and decision-making.

What Developers Get Wrong

When studios lean into arcade mechanics for boxing, they risk alienating the audience that actually sustains the game long-term. Casuals may play for a month, but hardcore fans—amateur boxers, pros, coaches, historians, and students of the sport—will keep playing and keep spending. Yet they are the first to walk away if authenticity is stripped away.

Instead of dumbing down mechanics, developers should focus on:

Teaching through tutorials and modes, making realism approachable.
Layering mechanics so casuals can enjoy surface-level play while hardcore fans dig deeper.
Building a real skill gap based on strategy, not memorization.

Conclusion: Arcade vs. Sports is Not the Same

Casual fans are willing to put up with hard combos in arcade fighters because they know that’s the point of the genre. But when it comes to sports games, they often demand simplicity, which undermines the realism of the sport. The real solution isn’t to dumb down boxing—it’s to build a system where boxing feels like boxing, and players naturally learn through practice, just as in arcade fighters.

Because at the end of the day, arcade games reward combo memory, while sports games should reward sport IQ.

Stop Forcing Hardcore Fans to Accept Casual-Focused Boxing Games

The Ghost of EA Fight Night Champion

When EA released Fight Night Champion, the franchise was already at a crossroads. Instead of doubling down on simulation depth and boxer individuality, EA pivoted toward casual players. They streamlined mechanics, pushed a cinematic “Champion Mode” narrative, and downplayed the unique traits that made real-life boxing so compelling.

The result? Hardcore fans felt alienated. The casuals enjoyed a short burst of novelty, but when the dust settled, both groups drifted away. EA quietly shelved the franchise, proving that you can’t build long-term success by ignoring the people who care most about the sport.

Now, Steel City Interactive (SCI) risks repeating the same mistake with Undisputed.

The SCI Approach: A Familiar Formula

SCI’s messaging and design choices point toward a hybrid, arcade-leaning vision. Boxers often share the same animations, individuality feels stripped down, and the focus appears to be on cosmetics and DLC rather than depth.

This is the very formula that tanked Fight Night Champion. The problem isn’t just that it failed once—it’s that SCI should know better. Hardcore boxing fans are already warning them: this road leads nowhere. Casual fans don’t sustain niche sports games, and hardcore fans won’t tolerate being dismissed again.

Whose Job Is It to Know This?

Inside any serious game studio, there are roles specifically responsible for understanding which fan base sustains a game long-term.

Product Managers / Producers – They set the vision and balance business goals with community needs. It’s their responsibility to decide whether to lean arcade or simulation.
User Research & Analytics Teams – They run surveys, playtests, and focus groups. They should have data proving hardcore fans stick around, spend more, and create content.
Community & Player Insights Managers – They monitor fan conversations across Discord, Reddit, YouTube, and social platforms. They’re supposed to ensure the studio hears and respects its most loyal fans.
Executives & Investors – They apply pressure for broad appeal, often without understanding that boxing isn’t FIFA or Madden.

If these people are doing their jobs properly, they should already know that hardcore fans aren’t optional—they’re the foundation. If they don’t, either they’re misreading the data, or worse, deliberately ignoring it.

Why They Think Hardcores Will “Accept Anything”

So why do people with these titles assume hardcore fans will put up with a casual-focused product? Several flawed beliefs drive this:

Misreading History – They see Fight Night Champion as a success because of its initial sales, while ignoring the long-term collapse.
Trickle-Down Fandom – They think hardcore fans are so loyal they’ll buy anything just to support boxing.
Investor Pressure – Executives demand mass appeal, and research is twisted to fit the narrative.
Community Control – They believe messaging can spin hardcore complaints into irrelevance.
Category Mistake – They treat boxing like FIFA or Madden, ignoring that boxing doesn’t have a giant casual base to fall back on.
Short-Term Thinking – Launch sales make them look successful on paper, even if long-term engagement crumbles.

The result is arrogance: an assumption that hardcores will “fall in line” because they don’t have another option.

The Sad Reality: Forcing Fans Into What They Don’t Want

It’s not just a design decision—it’s a respect issue.

Hardcore fans aren’t asking for gimmicks, shortcuts, or reskinned boxers. They’re asking for the sport they love to be represented authentically. When a studio forces them into a casual mold, the message is clear: “Your passion doesn’t matter. You’ll take what we give you.”

This mentality turns hardcore fans from loyal partners into reluctant hostages. And history proves it backfires: once hardcore fans lose trust, they stop buying DLC, stop promoting the game, and start warning others not to bother.

What SCI Is Missing

SCI could have seized the opportunity to be the anti-EA: the studio that finally gave boxing fans the depth and authenticity they’ve been begging for. Instead, they’re flirting with the same failed formula.

Hardcore fans don’t just buy—they evangelize. They’re the ones who keep the game alive years later, running leagues, building mods, and spending money on every piece of content. Casuals come and go, but hardcore fans are the lifeblood of the sport.

By dismissing them as “5%,” SCI risks alienating the only group that can sustain them.

Conclusion: A Warning SCI Can’t Ignore

Forcing hardcore boxing fans to accept a casual-focused boxing game is not just sad—it’s self-destructive. EA already tried it, and the franchise vanished for a decade. SCI is standing on the same cliff, staring into the same void.

The real question isn’t whether hardcore fans will accept what they don’t like—it’s whether SCI will finally learn the lesson that EA ignored. Because if they don’t, history is about to repeat itself, and boxing fans will once again be left with nothing.

Message to SCI: Stop treating hardcore fans like an obstacle. They’re your greatest asset. Build for them first, and the rest will follow. Ignore them, and you’ll end up exactly where EA did: with a dead franchise and a betrayed community.

Would Undisputed 2 Survive If It Leans Toward Arcade?

When a sequel is announced, fans don’t just expect more of the same—they expect evolution. In the case of Undisputed 2, the community expected a stronger push toward realism, authenticity, and depth. But what happens if the game instead moves in the opposite direction—toward a hybrid model that leans arcade over simulation?

The answer is complicated. Yes, the game may still sell copies at launch, but its long-term survival and legacy could be at serious risk.

The Casual Magnet: Early Sales Won’t Be the Problem

Casual fans are easy to attract. Flashy knockouts, quick matches, and highlight-reel gameplay look great in trailers. If Undisputed 2 leans more arcade, it will be more accessible, and casuals will jump in for the fun factor.

That’s where the short-term success ends.

Casual players rarely stay invested in sports games unless there’s real depth and progression to keep them engaged. They move quickly to the next trending title. This means Undisputed 2 could sell well at launch but bleed players within months.

The Hardcore Community: The Pillar You Can’t Ignore

Here’s where SCI risks a collapse. The hardcore boxing community is the foundation that carried Undisputed from early access to a million copies sold. These are the players who:

Buy every DLC pack.
Keep discussion alive on Reddit, Discord, YouTube, and Twitter/X.
Critique mechanics and push for accuracy, making the game better over time.
Introduce casuals to the game through content, tutorials, and word-of-mouth.

If Undisputed 2 confirms it is leaning arcade, this core group will feel betrayed. For them, authenticity wasn’t optional—it was the promise. If that trust is broken, the community won’t just leave quietly; they’ll actively discourage others from buying in.

The Long-Term Sales Problem

Launch day sales aren’t the true measure of success—sustained engagement is. A boxing game thrives on its ecosystem: DLC, competitive modes, streaming, and tournaments. Without hardcore fans driving that ecosystem, sales of DLC rosters, cosmetic packs, and future expansions will stall.

SCI may think they can depend on casuals to pick up DLC, but history says otherwise. Casuals don’t research boxers they don’t know. They won’t spend money on unfamiliar names. Hardcore fans do. That’s why alienating them is such a dangerous gamble.

Brand Trust and Reputation

There’s another consequence beyond sales: trust. Fans already question SCI’s decisions and direction. If Undisputed 2 leans arcade, it would confirm the suspicion that SCI is chasing the quick buck rather than building the “boxing version of NBA 2K” fans dreamed of.

This would make the franchise vulnerable. If another studio announces a true simulation boxing game, the disillusioned hardcore base will migrate instantly. SCI would lose not just players, but the credibility to compete.

The Bottom Line

So, would Undisputed 2 sell well if fans discover it’s an arcade-leaning hybrid?

Yes, in the short-term. Casual players will buy in off marketing hype and easy accessibility.
No, in the long-term. Without hardcore retention, DLC revenue collapses, the player base shrinks, and the franchise risks becoming a forgotten arcade experiment.

The truth is simple: you cannot build a lasting boxing franchise by abandoning the very community that built it.

Why Aren’t Gaming Companies Giving Hardcore and Casual Fans Their Own Options?

Why Aren’t Gaming Companies Giving Hardcore and Casual Fans Their Own Options?

Introduction: One Size Shouldn't Fit All

In an era where games rake in billions, attract global audiences, and dominate pop culture, the idea that one single version of a game can please everyone is outdated. Yet, many gaming studios—from indie to AAA—insist on creating monolithic experiences that blur the lines between hardcore and casual audiences. This not only dilutes the gameplay vision but alienates both ends of the spectrum. Hardcore fans feel betrayed by oversimplified systems and mechanics, while casual players often feel overwhelmed when the game leans too far into complex realism.

So, the big question is: Why aren't studios giving both fan groups their own settings, modes, or experiences?

Section 1: The Two Tribes—Hardcore vs. Casual

The Hardcore Fan

Hardcore gamers are the lifeblood of longevity. They:

Analyze frame data
Master mechanics
Create guides, wikis, and YouTube breakdowns
Invest hundreds to thousands of hours
Become evangelists for the game
Stick around even during content droughts

They don’t just play—they build communities, host tournaments, and drive the meta.

The Casual Player

Casual fans are:

Time-limited
Drawn in by visual polish, hype, or celebrity tie-ins
Seeking accessibility and fun over mastery
Likely to dip in and out
A massive revenue stream when marketed correctly

They bring in initial sales and wide exposure. Their value is not less than hardcore fans—just different.

Section 2: The Missed Opportunity

Despite the clear distinctions between these two groups, many studios build a game trying to appeal to both with a single default ruleset. This results in:

Dumbed-down mechanics for the sake of casual accessibility
Lack of realism for the hardcore audience
Conflicting design philosophies under one roof
Fanbase infighting on forums and Discords

The worst part? These groups don’t want the same things. And they don’t need to share a single experience.

Imagine this instead:

Hardcore Sim Mode: Realistic stamina, nuanced hit detection, customizable sliders
Arcade Mode: Flashy visuals, forgiving controls, quick knockouts
Hybrid Mode: A middle-ground for experimenters

Games like MLB The Show, NBA 2K, and Gran Turismo have flirted with this idea through sliders and simulation options, but few studios lean in fully.

Section 3: So Why Don’t They Offer Dual Experiences?

1. Fear of Fragmentation

Publishers fear splitting their user base. Two modes mean:

Separate balancing
Different tutorials
Potentially conflicting metas

But smart UI/UX design and modern engines can easily silo modes while keeping the core intact.

2. Resource Constraints (Real or Imagined)

Companies claim they don’t have the time, budget, or team to support multiple modes. Yet:

Many reuse codebases and animations
Community modders create entire overhaul mods for free
DLC models prove gamers will pay for more tailored experiences

So, what’s the real reason?

3. Leadership Vision Bias

Often, executives or directors push a singular vision. If they lean casual, the whole product does too—even if the studio started as a hardcore darling. Vision shifts happen, and the hardcore base often pays the price.

4. Survey Avoidance or Manipulation

Some companies fear collecting honest fan data. Why? Because the truth might show that hardcore fans:

Spend more
Create more content
Stick around longer

A survey showing this would force studios to rebuild systems or cater to a market they previously dismissed as “too niche.” So instead, they avoid surveys—or rig the questions to favor their preferred audience.

Section 4: The Path Forward—Dual Design as Standard

Here’s how studios can make both groups happy:

✅ Custom Game Modes

Allow players to choose between Arcade, Simulation, and Hybrid modes at the beginning. Each with their own sliders, balancing, and pacing.

✅ Community Settings and Presets

Let the community vote and share “meta presets.” Think “Hardcore Realism Voted Preset” or “Quick Knockout Casual Mode.”

✅ Modular Systems

Design core mechanics with modular toggles. A stamina system that can be light, medium, or brutal. A hitbox system that can be arcade or anatomical. Let it scale.

✅ Surveys That Matter

Ask both groups what they want. Accept the results. Then act on them. Transparency matters.

✅ Multiple Leaderboards and Ranked Ladders

Separate skill paths—one for casual glory, another for competitive purity.

Section 5: Games That Almost Got It Right

NBA 2K: Offers sliders, realism tuning, and MyLeague sim options—but hides some of them under layers of menus.
Gran Turismo: Has simulation at its core but provides various assist levels and race modes.
Skate Series: Let the player define trick difficulty and gravity assists.
EA Fight Night Champion: Had stamina and damage tuning, but no full “sim mode.”

The template is there—it just needs a studio brave enough to do it unapologetically.

Final Thoughts: The Best of Both Worlds Is Possible

Hardcore and casual fans don’t have to be rivals. They are different lanes on the same highway. Studios have the tools, the engines, the metrics, and the feedback. What’s missing is the will.

The future of gaming is modular, community-driven, and player-empowered. The first studio to embrace dual design fully—hardcore and casual coexisting without compromise—will not only gain respect but redefine what gaming accessibility truly means.

(For Sharing)

🎮 Why don’t games give casual and hardcore fans their own modes?
Because of fear, laziness, or vision bias. But it's possible. And it’s overdue.
✅ Give us Sim Mode.
✅ Give us Arcade Mode.
✅ Let us choose.
Stop watering down both sides for the sake of one-size-fits-all. The future is modular.

“Hardcore Fans Spend More, So Why Is SCI Ignoring Them?”

Why Steel City Interactive Avoids Honest Fan Surveys

Introduction

Surveys are one of the most direct tools for developers to gather insight from their player base. In theory, they provide transparency, build trust, and give fans a voice. But in practice—especially in the case of Undisputed—Steel City Interactive (SCI) has every reason to avoid or tightly control them. The issue isn’t just resources, timing, or logistics. It’s about power, pressure from investors, and the risk of exposing truths SCI doesn’t want on record.

Hardcore Fans: The Lifeblood of the Game

If a legitimate, large-scale survey were conducted across platforms, it would likely confirm what many already know:

Hardcore fans spend more money. They buy DLC, special editions, and keep investing long after casuals drift away.
Hardcore fans stay longer. They create leagues, keep lobbies alive, and build a sense of community around the game.
Hardcore fans generate hype. They stream, create videos, write blogs, and rally fanbases that casual players never could.

Investors and publishers would see those numbers and demand that SCI cater to them. Suddenly, authenticity and realism—the very things SCI has brushed off as “too niche”—would become financial imperatives.

Investor and Publisher Pressure

For SCI, that’s dangerous. A survey proving hardcore fans are the backbone of the market would force them into expensive, time-consuming pivots.

Features like referees, clinching mechanics, stamina depth, and individualized boxer animations would no longer be optional “nice-to-haves.”
Investors could pressure SCI to reallocate budgets, hire new staff, and rebuild systems they’ve already dismissed.
Publishers would question SCI’s hybrid/arcade philosophy and demand greater alignment with what surveys prove fans actually want.

In short: a real survey would strip SCI of the ability to claim they’re building “what fans want.”

How SCI Could Steer a Survey

Even if SCI did release a survey, it’s easy to design one that produces the answers they want. Common tactics include:

1. Leading Questions

Framing choices to make realism seem undesirable.

“Would you prefer faster-paced action or slower, more technical gameplay?” This implies “technical” equals boring.

2. False Binaries

Forcing players into narrow trade-offs.

“Would you rather see more boxers added or referees implemented?” This erases the middle ground—fans who want both.

3. Overemphasis on Cosmetics

Highlighting monetizable extras instead of core systems.

“Which alternate attire packs would you most like to see?” This pushes players to think about cosmetics, not gameplay.

4. Selective Sampling

Only distributing surveys on channels with a heavy casual base, avoiding hardcore communities on Discord or boxing forums.

5. Framing Authenticity as “Niche”

Using wording like:

“Do you think features like referee stoppages and stamina-based clinching are necessary for your enjoyment?” This primes players to dismiss realism as fringe.

6. Withholding or Cherry-Picking Results

Even if authenticity wins, SCI could simply never publish the full data, highlighting stats that fit their narrative instead.

The Core Issue

A genuine, independently conducted survey would validate hardcore fans and force SCI to deliver the authenticity they’ve long resisted. But a steered or carefully framed survey would only serve as a PR shield. That’s why SCI leans toward silence: it’s easier to avoid accountability altogether than risk being forced into a corner by hard data.

Conclusion

SCI’s reluctance to run an honest fan survey isn’t about practicality—it’s about control. The moment data proves hardcore fans are the foundation of Undisputed’s future, SCI’s narrative collapses. Investors and publishers would demand systems be rebuilt, staff be added, and realism restored.

By avoiding surveys, SCI avoids exposure. But in doing so, they also risk alienating the very group capable of carrying their game for years to come. Because when the dust settles, casuals will move on, and only the hardcore will remain—if they haven’t already walked away.

Ash Habib’s Framing and the Attempt to Isolate the Boxing Game Community

Introduction

When Steel City Interactive’s Ash Habib made comments about the Undisputed Discord community and the so-called “5%” of fans he referred to in his interview with content creators, it wasn’t just an offhand remark. It was a strategic attempt to shape the narrative. The implication was that Discord users represent only a tiny fraction of the audience, a small and noisy minority not reflective of the broader player base. But the reality is far more complex—and far more telling about where the community truly lives.

The Discord Isn’t the Whole Picture

Discord is one of the most active hubs for Undisputed conversation, but it’s only one branch of the tree. By framing it as the outlier, Ash attempts to minimize criticism and make it seem isolated. Yet, hardcore boxing fans, sim enthusiasts, and casual players alike don’t exist in silos. They overlap and spread across multiple platforms, forming a global web of feedback and discussion.

Where the Conversations Really Happen

The boxing game community is vast and interconnected. To claim Discord is “just 5%” ignores the constant activity in places like:

Reddit: Detailed threads critique gameplay mechanics, AI logic, DLC decisions, and missing boxing fundamentals.
YouTube: Creators analyze matches, post deep dives on realism vs arcade issues, and highlight fan frustrations through live reactions.
Twitter/X: Fans argue daily, with threads breaking down interviews, developer statements, and the ongoing arcade vs sim debate.
TikTok: Bite-sized content showcases first impressions, complaints about roster depth, or casual players reacting to bugs and imbalances.

Everywhere you look, people are talking about Undisputed—and not always in the way Steel City Interactive would like. The discussions are loud, consistent, and impossible to dismiss as a minority.

The Core Issue With Ash’s Framing

By pointing at Discord and slapping on the “5%” label, Ash tries to achieve three things:

Diminish fan criticism – painting it as niche outrage instead of widespread concern.
Control the narrative – making it seem like the “real” audience is happy while the “5%” complain.
Deflect accountability – suggesting the community doesn’t represent the majority, when in truth, hardcore sim fans influence casual players through culture, content, and authenticity.

But this strategy falls apart when you realize that criticism is consistent across every platform. From Reddit threads to YouTube breakdowns, the same frustrations appear over and over. This isn’t noise; it’s a signal.

Why the Hardcore Fanbase Matters

The hardcore sim audience is not just a small faction. They are the backbone of the sport’s gaming culture. They:

Educate casual players by explaining why mechanics matter.
Promote the game through YouTube content, TikTok highlights, and livestreams.
Influence real boxers—many of whom take their cues from these communities when deciding how to engage with the game.

To minimize them is to underestimate the group that keeps a game alive long after casuals have dropped off. The hardcore aren’t “just 5%.” They are the heartbeat of the game’s potential success.

Conclusion

Ash Habib’s attempt to isolate the Discord community as a niche, unrepresentative group is a calculated move—but one that falls flat under scrutiny. The conversation about Undisputed isn’t trapped on one platform. It spreads across Reddit, YouTube, X, TikTok, and beyond. The frustrations, critiques, and demands for realism are not coming from a minority—they are coming from everywhere.

If Steel City Interactive continues to dismiss this interconnected, passionate fanbase, they risk alienating the very people who can sustain their game. Hardcore fans are not just a slice of the pie; they are the foundation. Without them, the game becomes a revolving door for casuals, and that’s a dangerous road for any sports simulation to take.

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Why Boxing Videogames Can Turn Casuals Into Hardcore Fans

Introduction: The Mission of a Boxing Videogame

A boxing videogame is more than a button-masher or a shiny roster. It’s an opportunity to capture the essence of the sport, educate players, and build new generations of fans. The true mission should be simple: turn a casual into a hardcore fan while never losing the hardcore base.

Unfortunately, what we see too often is the opposite. Developers lean on cosmetics, names, and surface-level hype, hoping casuals will carry the sales. Hardcore fans—the very backbone of the sport—get pushed aside, minimized, or dismissed as “too niche.” But in a sport like boxing, that approach is short-sighted and dangerous.

The Power of Hardcore Fans

Hardcore boxing fans are not just another demographic; they are the lifeblood of the sport and, by extension, any boxing videogame. They:

Stay long-term: Casual players drift to the next big release. Hardcore fans stick around for years.
Spend more: They’re willing to buy DLC, create custom boxers, and invest in the full experience if the authenticity is there.
Influence conversations: Hardcore fans dominate forums, podcasts, and social media debates. Their approval—or disapproval—shapes how casual players view the game.

To pretend that hardcore fans only represent a “small percentage” is to completely misunderstand how niche sports thrive in gaming. In boxing, the hardcore base sustains the ecosystem.

The Untapped Market: Amateurs and Pros

Globally, there are hundreds of thousands of amateur boxers grinding in gyms, traveling to tournaments, and dreaming of glory. There are also thousands of professional boxers, each with their own story, following, and influence.

These athletes represent a massive potential audience. If they see themselves authentically represented in a videogame, they’ll not only play it—they’ll promote it. And their fans will follow.

The problem? When pros try current titles like Undisputed, many don’t look amazed. Their reactions are often muted. If the very athletes being digitized aren’t impressed, what does that say about authenticity? Fans notice this too, and it undermines the credibility of the game.

The Casual-to-Hardcore Conversion: The True Goal

The best sports franchises—NBA 2K, FIFA, MLB The Show—understood something vital: don’t just cater to fans, grow fans.

Here’s how they do it:

A casual fan comes in knowing a handful of stars.
The game introduces them to role players, international leagues, and hidden legends.
Over time, that casual becomes a student of the sport, invested beyond the surface.

Boxing games should do the same. Imagine a career mode that explains the amateur system, showcases Olympic routes, and emphasizes regional boxing styles. Imagine commentary that teaches casuals about tendencies, rivalries, and gym cultures. That’s how you create a fan for life—not just a weekend player.

Authenticity Matters: Boxers See Through It

Boxing is a sport built on individuality—every boxer has their own rhythm, stance, and habits. Yet too often, videogames reduce boxers to skins over the same animations. When pros play these games and don’t see themselves accurately, it shows in their body language. They may not say it outright, but their lack of excitement says everything.

For casual fans, this might not be immediately obvious. But for hardcore fans—and especially boxers themselves—it’s a deal breaker. A game that doesn’t feel authentic is just a hollow shell dressed in boxing gloves.

What Needs to Change

For a boxing videogame to succeed long-term, it must:

Respect authenticity
Unique animations, tendencies, and strategies—not reskinned templates.
Educate players
Use tutorials, commentary, and storylines to grow casuals into hardcore fans.
Win over boxers naturally
If pros genuinely enjoy playing as themselves, their passion will spread to fans.
Retain hardcore fans
Build depth: tendencies, traits, sim mechanics, and career systems that keep players invested for years.

Conclusion: Building the Bridge

A boxing videogame isn’t just a product—it’s a cultural bridge. It can connect the casual gamer who only knows Tyson and Ali to the amateur in the local gym, to the world champion defending his title, to the hardcore fan who’s been watching since the ’80s.

But that only happens if the game respects boxing at its core. Dismissing hardcore fans while chasing casuals is a recipe for short-term gain and long-term failure. The goal must always be to make a casual into a hardcore fan, while never losing the hardcore base.

Because in boxing, as in life, authenticity always wins.

Steel City Interactive’s Coming DLC Wake-Up Call: Why Names and Cosmetics Won’t Save Undisputed

Introduction

Steel City Interactive (SCI) is heading into dangerous territory with their DLC strategy for Undisputed. The studio seems confident that pumping out new boxer packs and cosmetic add-ons will be enough to keep their revenue flowing. But the reality is far harsher: casual fans are fleeting, hardcore fans are alienated, and a roster bloated with boxers who feel the same does not create long-term value. Unless SCI pivots, their DLC model is heading for a rude awakening.

The Casual Illusion

Casual players are often treated as the financial backbone of a sports title. SCI appears to be banking on this same model. But here’s the catch—casuals rarely invest deeply into a single game for the long haul.

They’ll buy the big names: Ali, Tyson, Canelo.
They’ll experiment with a few DLC packs early on.
Then they drift away when the novelty wears off.

That’s the very nature of the casual audience. They provide short bursts of revenue but not the consistent, dedicated support needed to sustain a niche sports game like boxing.

The Hardcore Exodus

Hardcore fans are the true long-term lifeblood of any boxing title. They’re the ones who:

Know the entire history of the sport.
Recognize differences in style, stance, rhythm, and footwork.
Invest in multiple DLC packs—so long as each one adds authentic value.

Unfortunately, SCI is failing them. When every boxer feels like a recycled skin, when traits don’t function properly, and when tendencies are absent altogether, hardcore players begin to feel ignored. Why spend money on DLC if it doesn’t deliver the realism they’ve been demanding since the start?

If the hardcore leave, the foundation crumbles. They’re not just paying customers—they’re evangelists, the ones who spread word-of-mouth and keep the game alive between content drops.

The Identity Problem

A boxing game cannot survive without identity. In boxing, every fighter is unique—not only in appearance but in how they fight, defend, and adapt in the ring.

Ali isn’t Tyson.
Canelo isn’t Lomachenko.
Joe Frazier isn’t Sugar Ray Leonard.

Fans buy into styles, not just names. Yet in Undisputed, the boxers largely feel interchangeable. Without unique tendencies, AI behaviors, and traits that actually function, the DLC pipeline risks becoming nothing more than a roster of “reskinned avatars.” That’s not just uninspiring—it’s dangerous for retention.

Names and Cosmetics Are Not Enough

SCI has been leaning heavily on names and cosmetics to sell DLC. Nostalgia, tattoos, trunks, and ring-walk gear dominate the updates. That strategy may sell the first wave of content, but it cannot sustain growth.

Cosmetics do not provide replay value. The hardcore base does not want more shorts—they want mechanics, tendencies, and depth that reflect the sport they love. A roster stacked with famous names dressed in accurate trunks means nothing if they all fight like clones once the bell rings.

The Missed Opportunity: Educating the Casuals

Casual fans can be converted into more dedicated players—but only if the game inspires them to learn. Imagine a game where controlling Roberto Durán makes you curious enough to go watch his fights. Or where using Lomachenko’s footwork in-game teaches you why he’s a modern phenomenon.

That’s the magic of authenticity. It bridges the gap between casual and hardcore by making the casual want to know more. Right now, SCI gives players no reason to dig deeper. Instead of curiosity, there’s apathy.

The Road Ahead: A Necessary Pivot

SCI is standing at a crossroads. Their DLC strategy will either:

Collapses under its own weight if it continues to rely on names and cosmetics.
Thrive if the studio finally invests in what makes boxing authentic: uniqueness, tendencies, and depth.

Here’s what must happen for SCI to avoid disaster:

Make Every Boxer Unique – Traits, tendencies, and AI behaviors must work to create real differences.
Stop Selling Only Surface-Level Cosmetics – Focus on gameplay identity, not just ring-walk gear.
Respect the Hardcore Base – Build systems that keep serious boxing fans engaged long-term.
Educate Casuals – Create mechanics and presentations that make casuals curious to learn, not bored to leave.

Conclusion

Steel City Interactive’s rude awakening is on the horizon. Casuals won’t stick around once the novelty fades. Hardcores won’t keep buying into a game that disrespects authenticity. And cosmetics cannot mask a lack of true boxing identity.

For Undisputed to survive and for its DLC model to succeed, SCI must stop leaning on names and cosmetics as a crutch and start building the authentic boxing experience the community has been demanding from day one.

“Why Steel City Interactive Fears the Truth a Survey Would Reveal”

“If SCI Believed Its Own Numbers, They’d Run a Survey”

Introduction

In today’s gaming landscape, fan feedback is not optional—it’s essential. Studios like 2K, EA, and even indie developers routinely use surveys, polls, and community outreach to gather data. So why hasn’t Steel City Interactive (SCI), the studio behind Undisputed, embraced this same level of transparency? The answer might be simpler—and more uncomfortable—than fans realize: they may be afraid of what the data would reveal.

1. Fear of Data That Contradicts Their Narrative

SCI leadership has often painted the fanbase as a “5% hardcore vs. 95% casual” split. This framing is used to justify hybrid and arcade-leaning decisions. But a real, transparent survey would risk proving them wrong. Imagine if 60–70% of players actually wanted referees, clinching, realistic stamina management, and individualized boxer animations. That would destroy the narrative they’ve leaned on for years.

2. Exposure of the Hardcore vs Casual Divide

Right now, SCI controls the story. They can say whatever they want about who their game is for. But surveys create receipts. If numbers showed a larger hardcore audience than they admit, SCI would be forced to answer why those fans’ needs are ignored. Worse for them, the casuals they’re banking on might not even be as engaged—or as financially loyal—as the hardcore players who would buy every DLC.

3. Accountability They Can’t Dodge

Without data, SCI can hide behind words like balance, vision, or majority of fans want…. With data, those words lose power. Surveys would lock them into commitments, and when they still ignored fans, they’d be called out with hard evidence. Simply put, SCI would no longer be able to rewrite history when community outrage flares up.

4. Loss of Creative Control

Game studios sometimes fear that surveys lead to “design by committee.” But that’s a smokescreen. What SCI may really fear is being exposed for not having the staff, infrastructure, or development pipeline to build the realistic systems players demand. By never asking, they never have to admit what they can’t deliver.

5. Revealing Market Misjudgments

The gaming world is more connected than ever. Every modern game requires internet access for patches, DLC, accounts, and updates. Pretending that “not all gamers use the internet” is laughable in 2025. A survey would prove most players are online, engaged, and willing to speak up—and that SCI has misjudged its market. Investors and publishers would see these numbers too, which could put SCI in an uncomfortable spotlight.

6. Investor Pressure SCI Doesn’t Want

If a fan survey showed the hardcore community spends more money, sticks around longer, and builds the most content and hype, investors would demand SCI cater to them. That would mean rebuilding systems SCI has already dismissed as “too niche,” which is expensive and time-consuming. It’s easier for them to avoid the survey entirely than risk exposing the truth.

The Big Lie: “Not All Gamers Are Online”

This excuse collapses under even light scrutiny:

Platform reality: PlayStation, Xbox, and Steam all require internet connectivity for the full game experience.
Community presence: Fans are everywhere—Reddit, YouTube, Discord, Twitter/X, TikTok. Conversations about Undisputed are happening daily.
Industry standard: Other sports titles (NBA 2K, Madden, FIFA/EA FC, MLB The Show) constantly run surveys and feedback sessions.

To claim otherwise in 2025 isn’t just misleading—it’s insulting.

Conclusion

Steel City Interactive’s refusal to run a survey isn’t about logistics. It’s about fear. Fear that the hardcore fans they downplay are actually the backbone of their market. Fear that the arcade-leaning pivot will be exposed as a miscalculation. Fear that investors, publishers, and the gaming community will hold them accountable for ignoring the data.

Surveys bring truth, and truth brings accountability. If SCI really believed in their vision, they’d prove it by asking the fans. The fact that they don’t tells you everything you need to know.

“The Survey SCI Is Too Afraid to Run (and the Excuses They’ll Hide Behind)”

The “Fans Will Rig the Survey” Excuse

Another excuse SCI could fall back on is the claim that “fans might take the survey multiple times” and skew the data. On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable concern, but in practice it’s weak:

Industry Standard Protections: Nearly every major survey platform (Google Forms, SurveyMonkey, Typeform, etc.) allows studios to require account log-ins, restrict duplicate submissions, or track IP addresses to prevent spam responses.
Controlled Sampling: SCI could easily send the survey through verified channels (official website, game launcher, social media accounts, and verified mailing lists) to keep participation authentic.
Data Cleaning: Even if duplicate attempts happened, modern analytics tools can flag outliers, filter spam, and reveal the true sentiment of the majority.

The “rigged survey” excuse is really just another way of saying they don’t want to know the truth. Because if fans were overwhelmingly arcade-leaning, SCI would run the survey tomorrow and parade those results as proof of their vision. The fear isn’t bad data—the fear is real data.

“SCI’s Dangerous Game: Ignoring the Hardcore Boxing Community”

Steel City Interactive and the 5% vs 95% Problem: Are Hardcore Boxing Fans Being Left Behind?

Introduction: The Promise vs. the Reality

When Undisputed first entered the public eye, Steel City Interactive (SCI) sold a vision that electrified boxing gamers everywhere: an authentic, realistic boxing experience that would finally carry the torch left behind by EA’s Fight Night Champion. Marketing used words like “simulation,” “realism,” and “the most authentic boxing game ever made.”

On paper, this was a message aimed squarely at the hardcore boxing community — the fans who live and breathe the sport, who have been begging for a sim for more than a decade, and who stick with a game long after casuals drift away.

But as the game matured, a contradiction surfaced. Gameplay leaned toward hybrid and arcade mechanics — high punch volume, shared animations, missing referee/clinch systems — while the owner of SCI, Ash Habib, publicly framed the audience as “5% hardcore vs. 95% casual.”

This comment wasn’t based on data — it was hypothetical framing, used to justify development choices. And that framing says a lot about where SCI’s priorities lie.

Marketing to the Hardcore, Building for the Casual

On the surface, SCI has taken multiple steps to appeal to hardcore boxing fans:

Licensing big-name fighters to give the game legitimacy.
Promising realism with deep punch variety, stamina systems, and nuanced footwork.
Community feedback loops where high-hour players (1,000+ hours) provide technical critique.

But when players actually experience Undisputed, the mechanics tell a different story:

Stamina & Recovery: Allows punch-spamming at volumes that defy realism.
Boxer Individuality: Most fighters feel similar because animations are recycled and traits don’t fully function.
Missing Fundamentals: No referees, clinching, or advanced tendencies despite years of development.
Balance Philosophy: SCI repeatedly leans on the word “balance” as a shield for decisions that dilute authenticity in favor of accessibility.

The result? Hardcore fans feel marketed to but not built for.

The “5% vs. 95%” Comment: A Window Into SCI’s Mindset

Ash Habib’s infamous “5% vs 95%” remark was not a statistic — it was a rhetorical move. By framing the audience this way, SCI justifies decisions that skew toward hybrid/arcade systems:

5% = Hardcore Sim Fans
- Vocal, demanding, detail-obsessed.
- Want referees, clinching, tendencies, realistic stamina, boxer individuality.
- Will pay for DLC, sliders, and stay loyal for years.
95% = Casual Players
- Viewed as the main revenue base.
- Easier to please with simpler, faster, more “fun” mechanics.
- Less interested in depth, more interested in pick-up-and-play.

By presenting the split as extreme, Ash effectively says: “We’re not ignoring hardcore fans, but we can’t build the game around them.” It turns development compromises into inevitabilities — not choices.

Why Hypothetical Framing Matters

The danger of this kind of framing is that it erases nuance. In reality:

Casual players often do want realism because it feels fresh compared to arcade brawlers.
Hardcore fans aren’t just “5%” — they’re the backbone of the community, DLC buyers, and long-term evangelists.
The line between casual and hardcore is blurred. Many casuals become hardcore when systems are deep and rewarding.

By leaning on the hypothetical 5/95 split, SCI reduces the conversation to extremes. It allows them to dismiss criticism from hardcore fans as “just the 5%” while reassuring investors that the game is being built for the majority.

The Optics Problem: Distrust and Alienation

To the hardcore fanbase, Ash’s framing reads like a declaration of intent:

“We’re not building this game primarily for you.”
“Your demands are too expensive and niche to matter.”

This creates:

Distrust: Hardcore fans no longer believe the authenticity marketing.
Division: Casual fans are framed as the majority, while hardcore fans are cast as “gatekeepers.”
Alienation: Fans who gave early support feel abandoned, especially when features promised in early development were cut or delayed indefinitely.

And the irony? When the gameplay is too shallow, even casuals move on quickly. Hardcore fans are the ones who would have stuck around, streamed the game, and bought into every update.

The Long-Term Risk for SCI

By leaning on hypotheticals and hybrid design, SCI risks:

Building a game that satisfies neither side fully — too arcade for sim fans, too shallow for casuals.
Losing the very audience that legitimized the project in the first place.
Watching a competitor eventually seize the niche by going all-in on realism and depth.

Boxing is not like basketball or football, where millions of casuals buy in yearly. It’s a niche sport with a loyal hardcore fanbase. To dismiss them as “5%” — even hypothetically — is to misunderstand the foundation of sustainable success.

Conclusion: What the 5% vs 95% Really Says

Ash’s comment was never about real numbers. It was about framing:

Framing hardcore demands as unrealistic.
Framing development shortcuts as logical.
Framing SCI’s direction as serving the “majority.”

But what it really says is this: SCI values short-term accessibility over long-term authenticity.

The tragedy is that the hardcore boxing community — the so-called “5%” — isn’t just a minority. They’re the lifeblood of the sport in gaming. Without them, Undisputed risks being just another flashy but forgettable title. With them, it could have been the definitive boxing sim of a generation.

✅ Final Word:
When SCI leans on “5% vs 95%,” they’re not citing data — they’re choosing sides. And until they recognize the true value of hardcore fans, their “authentic boxing game” will always feel caught in the middle, leaning toward arcade, while the very audience that believed in them most is left asking: “Who is this game really for?”

Friday, September 26, 2025

“Gameplay Over Roster: The Future of Boxing Games”

1. Casual Player Knowledge of Boxers

Reality Check:
Most casual players only know the biggest household names—Ali, Tyson, Mayweather, maybe Canelo or Fury. Beyond that, their boxing knowledge is thin.
Weight Classes:
Even hardcore fans sometimes struggle past the top 10 in each weight class. Casuals usually know 2–3 names max per division (e.g., Fury, Wilder, Joshua at heavyweight; Canelo, GGG, maybe Charlo at middleweight).

This means licensed rosters don’t matter as much to casuals—because they weren’t going to use 90% of the boxers anyway.

2. Why Gameplay > Roster at Launch

Casuals Buy Fun: If the game looks fun, plays well, and has good marketing hooks, casuals will pick it up. They don’t care if it has “Kid Gavilan” or “Jose Napoles” in the roster.
Creation Suite Fills the Gap: A strong Create-A-Boxer mode with community sharing lets casuals download or make the 2–3 names they know. That scratches their itch without needing official licenses.
Long-Term Value: Once they’ve had fun, THEN they’ll want more recognizable names. That’s when DLC and phased licensing comes in.

3. Lessons from Other Sports Games

Fire Pro Wrestling: Thrives for decades without WWE stars—players just create or download the stars they want.
UFC Undisputed 2009: Its success came more from being the only sim-style MMA game than its roster depth.
EA Fight Night: Fans kept playing Fight Night Champion not because of the full roster, but because of deep gameplay + modded boxers on PC/emulators.

4. Implication for a Blueprint-Based Boxing Game

Launch Focus:
- Market as “the most authentic boxing simulation ever made”.
- Emphasize systems (damage, stamina, AI) and creation freedom over name value.
Casual Buy-In:
Casuals won’t care if the game doesn’t have 200 licensed boxers—they only wanted to play as Tyson, Ali, or Fury. With a community-driven creation suite, they’ll still get that.
Hardcore Buy-In:
Hardcore boxing gamers will care about realism, tendencies, clinches, referees, stamina wars, etc.—exactly what the Blueprint pushes.

✅ Conclusion:
Casual players don’t know most of the roster anyway. That means licensing is not a dealbreaker for sales. If the game nails gameplay and customization, both casuals and hardcore fans will buy in. Licensing can be layered in later as icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Do you want me to map out a 2-phase launch strategy (Phase 1: No licensed boxers, focus on gameplay + creation; Phase 2: Bring in legends & modern stars as DLC to spike sales)?