Videogame Feedback

Saturday, July 5, 2025

“It’s Time to Let Our Gloves Do the Talking” – A Call to the Boxing Game Community

By Poe, Host of "Poe Speaking His Mind about Boxing Videogames"

🥊 The Bell Has Rung — Who’s In Our Corner?

For decades, we’ve waited.

Waited for a boxing video game that doesn’t treat the sport like a forgotten cousin of MMA.

Waited for developers to build something that reflects what boxing really is — not just a rock-paper-scissors arcade fighter in gloves, but a brutal, beautiful chess match where skill, heart, conditioning, and strategy matter.

And what have we gotten?

A string of broken promises, unfinished features, and the growing feeling that nobody in the industry is really listening to us — the ones who shadowbox between rounds of disappointment.

But that silence ends now.

🎧 This Is Why I Started the Podcast

“Poe Speaking His Mind about Boxing Videogames” wasn’t born out of bitterness. It was born out of love — love for boxing, and the belief that it deserves the same respect in gaming that basketball, football, and MMA enjoy.

This podcast is my corner of the ring. But it’s also your mic, your mouthpiece, your platform.

I created this show for:

🥇 The boxer who sees their discipline dumbed down into button mashers
🧠 The boxing fan who knows the difference between a pressure fighter and a slick counterpuncher
💬 The developer who wants to hear honest, raw, constructive feedback
🎮 The gamer who’s tired of waiting, paying, and hoping — only to be ignored again

Every episode is about truth-telling, game-changing, and calling it like we see it. From game critiques to wishlist features, to interviews and fan rants — it's all there.

🗣️ We Are Way Too Quiet About This

Let’s be real — Madden fans scream for patches. NBA 2K fans riot when a dunk animation is off. FIFA players flood the forums about realism, bugs, and tactics.

But boxing fans?

Too many of us are being too polite. Too patient. Too silent.

Why?
This is our sport. This is our culture. This is our money.

🎮 Developers, Pull Up a Chair

To every developer, game designer, producer, and studio lead: This podcast isn’t about bashing you. It’s about inviting you into the conversation. You want to build the best boxing game possible? Then listen to the people who actually love boxing, not just those who want a quick match online, but the fans who study the sport like it’s a religion.

We want:

Accurate punch mechanics
Realistic stamina, damage, and movement
A proper get-up system
Ring IQ, tendencies, traits, corner logic
And a career mode that feels alive, not just a menu with a fight button

Don’t be afraid of us. Work with us. Let’s make something legendary together.

🥊 Boxers, Step In the Ring Too

If you’re a current or former boxer reading this: speak up.

This is your likeness, your story, your experience being put into the digital world. You’ve earned the right to be accurately represented. You’ve earned the right to critique what doesn’t feel true to the ring. And your voice could shift an entire project.

We’ve seen what happens when NBA and NFL players demand realism — the games improve. So why not boxing?

🔥 Call to the Fans: Get Loud

Stop accepting less.

Stop defending half-baked games just because they “look better than the last one.”

Start demanding more. Share your wishlist. Join the podcast. Be a guest. Send in your voice notes. Or just share the link and start the convo.

Because this time, we’re not waiting quietly in the corner.

🎙️ How to Join the Movement

🔗 Podcast Link (TalkShoe)
https://app.talkshoe.com/episode/51625309
📱 Scan the QR Code on the promo flyer
🥊 Submit Topics for episodes
🎧 Listen & Subscribe
💬 Tag devs. Share your take. Join the voice of the fans.

Final Word: It’s Not Just a Game

They love to say that, don’t they?

“It’s just a game.”

But here’s the truth: it’s more than a game when it disrespects the sport.

We’re not asking for the impossible. We’re asking for what every other sports gaming community already expects — and receives.

The boxing community has a voice.

It’s time we use it.

#PoeSpeakingHisMind
#BoxingVideogamesDeserveBetter
#RespectTheSweetScience
#SpeakUpForBoxing
#TapInSpeakUp
#RealismMatters

Friday, July 4, 2025

This Is What the NBA 2K of Boxing Should’ve Been — Not What Ash Habib Delivered

Boxing fans were promised something historic.

In 2021, Ash Habib (CEO of Steel City Interactive) claimed that Undisputed would be "the most authentic boxing game ever made" and "the NBA 2K of boxing" [Source: Boxing Social Interview, 2021]. The company marketed the game as a simulation-first experience, featuring realistic AI, corner tactics, and fighter-specific tendencies.

“This isn’t a button-masher. This is chess, not checkers.”
– Ash Habib, Steam Early Access Launch Trailer, Jan 2023

But instead of that rich simulation, boxing fans received:

No referees, even after over 2 years of development
No real clinch system, despite teasers from early builds
AI with no boxer-specific tendencies, despite SCI showcasing sliders and AI profiles in dev logs
A career mode that felt shallow and unfinished
Copy-paste knockdowns with no momentum physics
Unresponsive footwork, floaty controls, and unrealistic movement
And no commentary, doctor stoppages, or presentation layers, all promised features

🔁 What Was Promised vs. What Was Delivered

Category	Promised	Delivered	Citation
Simulation	“Not a button masher”	Fast-paced arcade meta	Steam EA trailer, 2023
Career Mode	Full sandbox and story hybrid	Match calendar with few choices	Dev Diary 2022
Real Boxers	“Fighting like themselves”	No AI tendencies per boxer	Discord Q&A, 2023
Footwork	“Cut off the ring, pivot”	Side shuffle and janky turning	Dev Stream, 2022
Presentation	Referees, intros, judges	None of those implemented	Community roadmap 2022
Knockdowns	Realistic momentum falls	Copy-paste knockdown physics	Gameplay footage
Clinch	Real clinch warfare	Removed from public builds	Discord AMA, July 2023
AI Logic	“Adaptive and strategic”	Static pattern abuse	User reviews, Steam

📉 The Fallout of Abandoning the Vision

Boxing fans didn’t imagine this. It was spoken, marketed, and sold.

SCI developers also teased offline depth akin to Fight Night Champion’s Champion Mode, combined with dynamic ranking systems and evolving careers. Instead, Undisputed offers matchmaking fluff and roster expansion DLCs.

And as of mid-2025, Will “Raczilla” Kinsler, a former EA Sports developer who left before Fight Night Champion shipped to work at Epic Games, is now Director of Product Authenticity, Communications, and Gameplay at SCI.

“I want to make sure the game is authentic, but also accessible.”
– Raczilla via Discord, 2024

This has raised community concerns about the game drifting toward arcade-first thinking, rather than sim-first realism.

And with his rise in SCI's ranks and multi-title authority, many fans now believe the vision is being reshaped into a casual, EA-like fighter — not the deep sim originally promised.

🔥 Community Reaction

Across YouTube, Reddit, Discord, and Steam:

Modders and AI testers have posted workarounds to simulate realistic AI
Fans are editing boxer stats manually to add missing ring IQ
The game’s concurrent Steam players dropped sharply after every patch that removed simulation features (Source: SteamDB)

🎯 Closing Thought

Ash Habib and SCI had the blueprint.
They had the backing of fans hungry for realism.
They had the chance to lead the next evolution of boxing gaming — not just visually, but mechanically and spiritually.

But they didn’t deliver the NBA 2K of boxing.

They delivered something safer, smaller, and increasingly commercial.

📌 Suggested Citations and References:

Boxing Social Interview with Ash Habib, 2021 (paraphrased)
Undisputed Steam Trailer (Jan 2023)
Steel City Interactive Dev Diary, 2022
[Discord AMA Transcript, July 2023 – SCI Official Discord]
SteamDB Concurrent Player Charts
Gameplay Streams and Dev Logs – Undisputed YouTube Channel

Boxers and Boxing Must Stop Letting Steel City Interactive Fumble the Ball and the Bag

Introduction: Time to Wake Up

For far too long, boxers, boxing fans, and the wider boxing community have sat on the sidelines watching Steel City Interactive (SCI) mishandle what should’ve been the most important boxing video game in decades. Undisputed was supposed to be the game that respected the sweet science, celebrated its legends, elevated new talent, and gave fans a true simulation of the sport they love.

Instead, what we’ve seen is a studio dropping the ball—and the bag—again and again.

It’s time to stop enabling it. It's time for the boxing world to demand accountability.

1. The Broken Promises: A Game for Boxing Fans, by Boxing Fans?

Steel City Interactive once claimed Undisputed would be a “love letter to boxing.” A game for boxing fans, by boxing fans. It was marketed with phrases like:

“Not just a fighting game. A boxing game.”
“Sim gameplay inspired by the science of the sport.”
“The NBA 2K of boxing.”

These were not small claims. These were deliberate promises. But what we got instead was a confused product teetering between arcade and simulation, devoid of core features like:

Clinching mechanics
Referee involvement
Stamina systems that matter
Proper punch impact and fatigue modeling
Meaningful AI behavior tied to real boxer tendencies

This isn’t just a disappointment—it’s false advertising to an audience that’s waited over a decade for a real boxing simulation.

2. The Bag That Keeps Getting Dropped

Let’s be clear: SCI had the bag. The community gave them attention, early access purchases, feedback, and even a built-in marketing campaign through passionate fans and YouTubers who believed in the dream. They secured licensing deals with legendary and current boxers, from Ali to Tyson Fury.

And yet, they fumbled:

Slow development with features constantly delayed or deprioritized
Inconsistent vision, with former EA developers slowly shifting the tone to mimic arcade fighting games
Broken gameplay loops, with balance issues, unrealistic animations, and missing foundational mechanics
Ignoring the sim community, favoring quick Twitch-friendly content over long-term immersion

Boxers like Terence Crawford, Deontay Wilder, and even legends like Roy Jones Jr. are now linked to a game that misrepresents their craft.

3. The Boxing Community’s Responsibility

Here’s where the hard truth comes in: part of this is on us.

Too many boxers, trainers, and fans have been silent or too forgiving. They shrug it off with “it’s indie,” “they’ll fix it,” or “at least we have something.” But boxing deserves better than something. It deserves excellence.

Boxing already struggles to capture mainstream attention in the digital age. A powerful, realistic boxing video game could’ve revitalized the sport’s popularity for a younger generation. Instead, Undisputed risks setting it back.

If this were the UFC, Dana White would’ve taken over the project himself by now. Where’s the outrage from boxing's top promoters? Where’s the feedback from current boxers who’ve been scanned into the game but haven’t seen their likenesses used properly?

4. What Boxers and Brands Must Do Now

If you're a professional boxer and your name or likeness is in Undisputed, ask yourself:

Does this game accurately reflect your fighting style?
Does this represent your sport with dignity?
Does this elevate your brand or water it down?

If the answer is no, speak up. Demand transparency from SCI. Push for oversight, corrections, and accountability.

If you're a promoter, broadcaster, or manager, protect your fighter’s image and legacy. Help push for either an overhaul of the current game or support a new studio ready to do justice to boxing.

5. Solutions and a Path Forward

It’s not too late to course correct, but that window is shrinking.

Demand a roadmap: with clear deadlines and a realistic delivery of long-promised features
Empower real boxing consultants: not just former game devs from other genres
Fund new competitors: if SCI can’t deliver, open the door for another dev team that respects the sport
Elevate offline and simulation communities: the ones who will stick around long after Twitch trends fade

Conclusion: Protect the Sweet Science

Boxing has always been about legacy, discipline, and respect. If Undisputed continues on its current path, it will be remembered not as the resurrection of boxing games but as a cautionary tale of mismanagement and missed opportunity.

Boxers, fans, and the entire sport can no longer afford to let SCI fumble the ball. Or worse—the bag.

It’s time to protect the sport not just in the ring, but in the digital world too.

#TakeBackBoxingGames
#BoxingDeservesBetter
#SimNotSpam
#StopTheFumbleSCI
#ProtectTheSweetScience

SCI’s Deception: “A Boxing Game by Boxing Fans for Boxing Fans” – What Happened?

Introduction:

When Steel City Interactive (SCI) first unveiled eSports Boxing Club (later renamed Undisputed), fans of the sweet science were electrified. The game promised to be made by boxing fans, for boxing fans—a love letter to the sport with simulation-heavy gameplay, authentic boxer representation, and AI that behaved like real-life champions. But years later, many fans feel betrayed. The final product feels far removed from the vision originally pitched.

I. The Promise: A Love Letter to the Sport

From its earliest trailers and interviews, SCI made bold claims:

“We are creating the most authentic boxing video game experience ever.”
— SCI Developer Commentary, YouTube, 2020
“This is not an arcade game. This is boxing. This is strategy, stamina, footwork, timing.”
— Alpha Gameplay Reveal, July 2021
“A boxing game by boxing fans for boxing fans.”
— SCI Official Discord, 2021
(widely cited in screenshots and developer replies)

They compared Undisputed to NBA 2K in terms of depth and authenticity, even referencing Fight Night Champion as a game they intended to surpass in realism.

II. The Deception: A Shift in Vision

As development progressed, the community noticed red flags:

Key simulation features were missing: Referees, realistic clinch mechanics, broken get-up systems, no ring physics, and underwhelming AI.
Online-first decisions: The focus heavily shifted to online matchmaking, esports, and cosmetics, marginalizing offline sim players.
Tone-deaf updates: Developers repeatedly downplayed realism. In interviews and Discord Q&As, phrases like “realism isn’t fun” or “we have to balance sim and arcade” were used to justify simplification.
Contradictory patches: Patches introduced unnatural movement speeds, punch spamming tolerance, and arcade-like interactions that contradicted earlier dev statements.

III. The Influence Behind the Curtain

Much of the shift has been attributed to the hiring of developers with backgrounds in arcade-style games and titles like Fortnite. One particular developer—who previously worked at EA and Epic—was described by some insiders as steering the vision away from realism, influencing SCI’s founder, who lacked prior game development experience.

“We had a vision for realism, but some of that had to change for accessibility and gameplay fun.”
— Unnamed SCI Developer in Reddit AMA, 2023

This language echoed industry speak from companies known for diluting their games to hit broader markets, alienating the very core fanbase that supported them early.

IV. The Fallout: Community Betrayal and Mixed Reviews

Fans who supported SCI from the start began calling out the broken promises:

“This is not what you advertised. This isn’t by boxing fans anymore.”
— Top Reddit post, r/UndisputedBoxing, 2024
“You can’t say you’re sim and then remove the get-up mechanic, ignore fatigue, and make punch spamming meta.”
— Boxing Game Youtuber ‘Boxing Fanatic’, March 2025 Review
Multiple high-profile boxers who once supported the game (e.g., Johnny Nelson, Caleb Plant) stopped promoting it as updates turned it into an unbalanced mess.

Even SCI’s Steam reviews show the tension:

“Great concept. Poor execution. Broken promises.”
— Steam User Review, March 2025

**V. The Verdict: Was It Ever For Boxing Fans?**

Many now believe that SCI used boxing fans’ hunger for realism to gain attention, only to pivot toward a more commercial, arcade-oriented model when the pressure of live service development and esports potential set in.

They marketed realism, but delivered accessibility. They promised a deep career mode, but provided cosmetics. They promised sim boxing AI, but released bots that swarm, swing, and chase—far from Ali, Mayweather, or Joe Frazier.

Citations:

SCI Official YouTube Channel
Alpha Gameplay Reveal | July 2021
Reddit AMA Archive – r/UndisputedBoxing
SCI Developer AMA, 2023
Steam Reviews – Undisputed
Steam Store Reviews Snapshot
Discord Leaks and Community Screenshots
– Screenshots archived and reposted by content creators and former mod team members on Discord, YouTube, and Reddit
BoxingFanatic YouTube Channel
Undisputed is NOT a Simulation Anymore | March 2025

Conclusion:

What began as a revolutionary promise to boxing fans devolved into another cautionary tale in modern game development. Steel City Interactive may still claim it’s “by fans, for fans,” but those who truly respect the sweet science know: the jab missed, the footwork stumbled, and the heart just isn’t in it anymore.

Thursday, July 3, 2025

Steel City Interactive Contradictions and Excuses

Here’s a detailed, structured list of many of the excuses, misleading claims, and contradictions made by Steel City Interactive (SCI) throughout the development and Early Access release of Undisputed. These are drawn from interviews, Discord messages, YouTube videos, and community observations, and grouped by theme for clarity:

🎭 Marketing and Vision Contradictions

Statement	Reality / Contradiction
“Undisputed will be the most authentic boxing game ever made.”	Replaced simulation mechanics with arcade elements; realism regressed post-beta.
“This is chess, not checkers.”	Current gameplay favors pressure spamming and unrealistic movement over strategic boxing.
“We’re building the foundation of boxing.”	The game lacks core boxing fundamentals: realistic clinching, proper footwork, inside fighting, stamina management, and ring generalship.
“We’re making a game for boxing fans.”	Decisions appear to cater more to arcade fighting game fans; many real boxing fans feel alienated.
“This is not Fight Night.”	Yet many systems imitate or fall short of Fight Night mechanics, and "legacy" Fight Night devs were brought in.

🛠️ Development Excuses

Excuse	Community Response
“We’re just an indie team.”	After 5+ years in development and with a publisher (PLAION), the indie excuse loses weight.
“We didn’t anticipate this many players or expectations.”	SCI generated massive hype with early trailers and high-profile signings (Ali, Tyson), so high expectations were natural.
“Features like career mode will come later.”	Core features like offline progression and creation suite are still absent or vague, 1.5 years into Early Access.
“This was always meant to be an arcade-sim hybrid.”	Early trailers, interviews, and dev diaries pushed realism and simulation — not hybrid gameplay.
“Animations are hard to implement due to tech constraints.”	Other studios with fewer resources (e.g., Thud Games) achieved smoother results for boxing animations.

🎮 Gameplay & Balance Excuses

Excuse	Reality / Community Reaction
“We’re still balancing stamina and damage.”	Unrealistic output remains: users throw 100+ punches a round with no consequence.
“Footwork is a work in progress.”	Foot skating, pivots on rails, and lack of true ring cutting persist. Regressed from earlier builds.
“Clinch mechanics are hard to implement.”	Clinching was teased as a major feature early on, yet remains absent. Basic grab/interact logic exists in other games.
“Body shots are underutilized because players don’t use them.”	Body shots are ineffective due to tuning, and the lack of realistic fatigue or reaction systems discourages usage.
“Fighting on the inside is hard to implement.”	But the entire sport requires it — ducking, inside hooks, arm positioning, leaning, and pressure defense are absent.

🧠 AI & Tendency Excuses

Excuse	Reality
“AI is placeholder; it will improve.”	AI remains robotic, lacks true tendencies, doesn’t adapt, and shows no ring IQ. Promised boxer-specific behavior is not present.
“Boxer styles are coming later.”	Many boxers play identically, despite drastically different real-life fighting styles. Styles are cosmetic, not mechanical.

🎨 Creation & Customization Excuses

Excuse	Community Complaint
“Creation suite is on the way.”	Over a year into EA, still no full create-a-boxer system, no offline roster management, and limited customization.
“Offline features are coming post-launch.”	No timeline provided, unclear scope. Core simulation players prefer offline longevity, not online spam.

📢 Community Engagement & Misleading Messaging

Tactic	Result
Promised transparency, yet repeated silence on delays and features.	Dev updates are vague, defensive, or avoidant when pressed on core complaints.
Moderators ban and mute users for criticizing game direction.	Community morale has dropped, especially among realism-focused fans.
Over-marketed "alpha footage" in 2021–2022 as near-final gameplay.	Misleading footage created inflated expectations.

🧾 Feature Promises Later Walked Back

Promised	Reality
Realistic stamina	Now arcade-like recovery. You can sprint and throw hundreds of punches.
Fighter-specific behavior	Most boxers fight identically or share movesets.
Clinching, inside fighting, ref interaction	Still not implemented; excuses given include complexity.
Deep offline mode	Career mode still unreleased. No gym management, rankings, or corner control.
Full control over sliders and tendencies	Absent; no user-defined AI behavior.
Slipping, ducking, and lean mechanics	Extremely limited or misrepresented. Hard to execute under pressure.

🧪 Systemic Issues Glossed Over

Claimed Solution	Actual Outcome
Input lag fixes and control tuning patches	Control response still clunky; movement lacks fluidity.
Improved punch tracking and hit reaction	Still floaty or delayed; unrealistic physics and reactions persist.
Power punches toned down	Still see instant flash KDs from jabs or weird counter triggers.
Balance changes to prevent spamming	Spam still dominates in most online matches.

🧨 Community View: Key Quotes Summarizing the Sentiment

“SCI sold a sim to boxing fans, then switched to arcade after cashing in.”
“They’re trying to convince hardcore fans that realism isn’t fun.”
“We waited years for a game that disrespects the very sport it was built on.”
“Undisputed is Fight Night 2.5 with even less boxing knowledge.”

🧾 Summary

SCI has:

Overpromised and underdelivered
Contradicted their own vision
Avoided core mechanics of boxing
Prioritized short-term mass appeal over authentic simulation
Used “indie” status as a shield while making deceptive marketing moves

“They Didn’t Just Figure It Out — They Held It Back”

How Video Game Companies Withhold Features and Spin Them as Innovations in Sequels

Introduction: The Sequel Illusion

Gamers have been gaslit for decades.
We’ve been told:

“We finally figured out how to implement this!”
“Thanks to player feedback, we added that mechanic!”
“Technology now allows us to do what we couldn’t before!”

But in truth, many developers already had these ideas prototyped or partially built. The missing feature in your favorite game? It likely wasn’t forgotten. It was delayed on purpose, strategically withheld to be spun as the “next big thing” in a sequel, DLC, or live update.

This practice has infected sports games, open-world sandboxes, fighting games, and even beloved franchises like GTA, NBA 2K, and boxing titles like Fight Night and Undisputed.

Section 1: The Business Strategy Behind Holding Back

Why Hold Back?

Content Pacing – Avoid exhausting all ideas in one release
Marketing Hooks – "We heard you!" becomes a rally cry for re-engagement
Franchise Lifecycle Management – Feature stacking across sequels keeps IPs alive
Budget Management – Teams are allocated feature goals over multiple phases
Planned Obsolescence – The current title needs to feel incomplete by design

It’s not incompetence—it’s calculated decision-making, often led by publishers, not developers.

Section 2: Key Examples of Suspected Feature Holding

Case: Fight Night Series (EA Sports)

Fight Night Round 3: No clinching, no visible referees, no corner work.
Fight Night Champion: Suddenly — realistic clinches, flash knockdowns, story mode, corner advice.

🧩 Theory: These mechanics weren’t technical miracles; they were staggered to give the impression of improvement and progression.

Case: Undisputed (Steel City Interactive)

Promised realism from the start: “Like chess, not checkers.”
Yet, several years later: No clinching, no ref in the ring, no in-fight corner mechanics, no crowd chant sync, no stamina-based knockdown system.
Now they're implying those will be added in a future version.

🎭 Marketing Tactic: Act like fan feedback "unlocked" these features when in reality, they may have been deprioritized or intentionally shelved.

Case: GTA V (Rockstar Games)

Launched without online heists — a cornerstone feature of the online fantasy.
Delivered nearly 1.5 years later with massive hype.

🎯 Result: Rockstar made it feel like an innovation, despite the fact that it was advertised during launch.

Case: NBA 2K / FIFA

Year-over-year: minimal improvements, often reintroducing old features as new.
Career/MyPlayer modes gain tiny upgrades like barbershops, story arcs, and city layouts, while gameplay remains similar.

📉 Player Frustration: Gamers start recognizing this as “full-priced DLC with a roster update.”

Section 3: “We Just Figured It Out!” — The Fake Revelation

Here’s the spin that often happens:

“We finally figured out how to balance stamina-based knockdowns!”
“We were limited by technology before, but now we can do XYZ!”
“The community wanted this feature, and we delivered!”

False Narrative Warning:

Many of these features existed in games 10+ years ago.
Fan-requested features are well-documented and usually ignored until convenient.
Dev teams often have internal builds or scrapped versions with the feature working.

Translation: They didn’t just figure it out. They sat on it.

Section 4: Signs You're Being Drip-Fed

Behavior	Red Flag
Features "announced" in the sequel that were promised years ago	Likely held back intentionally
Developers pretend they just overcame a “technical hurdle” for a basic mechanic	Marketing spin
Feature shows up in DLC instead of base game	Monetization trap
Same engine, same gameplay, but now includes “requested” features	Franchise padding
They point to “community feedback” as the reason	Convenient deflection

Section 5: Is It Always Bad?

Not always. Here’s the nuance:

Sometimes devs really are constrained by tech, deadlines, or team size.
True breakthroughs do happen, especially in indie games or experimental systems.
Prioritization is necessary—some features aren’t feasible until core systems are stable.

But the issue isn’t technical delay—it’s dishonesty and manipulative framing that implies it was impossible until now.

Section 6: Gamers Are Wising Up

The community is learning:

Fans of games like Undisputed, Fight Night, and NBA 2K are starting to compare feature sets across generations.
Modders and indie devs often prove these features can be implemented, further exposing the lie.
Content creators and former insiders are speaking out about cut features and behind-the-scenes decisions.

The Truth Hidden Behind the Sequel

The idea that “we finally figured it out” is often just that—an idea, not a reality.

Game companies frequently hold back mechanics, then act like they overcame adversity when implementing them in the sequel. It’s a tactic rooted in marketing, not design.

Gamers deserve better than PR tricks and staggered features. They deserve honesty, transparency, and games that respect their time and intelligence.

Quote:

“It wasn’t a breakthrough—it was a slow release valve of content that they always had the ability to give us… but chose not to.”

Many video game companies do intentionally hold back features—or at least stagger feature implementation—for sequels or future updates. This is a mix of strategic planning, marketing, budget management, and sometimes resource limitations. Let’s break it down structurally:

🔹 1. Strategic Content Holding (Planned for Sequels)

Some studios intentionally omit features from a first release to:

Create hype for sequels ("We heard the fans, now it's in the sequel!")
Ensure a smoother production cycle across multiple titles
Stretch out innovation to avoid peaking too early

🔸 Example:

NBA 2K and FIFA are often accused of making minor changes annually, only improving modes incrementally.
Assassin’s Creed introduced features like naval combat or base-building in sequels—not because it was impossible earlier, but because it was a planned evolution.

🔹 2. Fake "We Figured It Out!" Marketing

Some devs will act like they’ve had a breakthrough when including features fans asked for years earlier:

“We listened to the community, and we finally got clinching mechanics working in this sequel!”

But in truth:

They likely already prototyped or tested those features
Marketing is framed to sound like innovation, even if it’s just catching up to player expectations

🔸 Why?
To:

Generate buzz
Re-engage lapsed players
Appear more responsive or self-improving than they really are

🔹 3. Technical Constraints vs. Priority Choices

Some features aren't held back on purpose—they’re:

Too resource-intensive at the time
Low priority compared to core features
Technically difficult due to engine limitations or studio experience

But later on, with:

Better tools
More funding
Team growth

…those features are added. This isn’t deception—it’s just development evolution.

🔹 4. DLC & Live Service Manipulation

Some companies withhold features to monetize them later, either through:

DLC
Season Passes
Cosmetic bundles
Live service updates

This is especially common in:

Fighting games (where key characters are often DLC)
Racing games (missing tracks/cars added later)
Sports titles (franchise improvements drip-fed year by year)

🔹 5. Examples of Suspected Holding Back

Game	Held Back Feature	Later Added
Fight Night Round 3	No clinching or ref interaction	Fight Night Champion
GTA V	Online Heists	1.5 years post-launch
EA UFC Series	Simple ground game at first	Grappling overhaul years later
Undisputed (SCI)	Referee, clinching, corner work	Still pending or "planned" after fan backlash

🔹 6. Is It Always Malicious?

Not necessarily.
Sometimes:

The devs want to nail the basics first
Budget and time force cuts
Publishers want to hit a release window

But in other cases, it's a deliberate business strategy.

🔹 7. How to Tell if a Studio is Holding Back on Purpose

Signal	What It Might Mean
Features teased but cut pre-launch	Budget issue or sequel bait
Devs “discover” solutions fans asked for years ago	Staged marketing
Sequel feels like a DLC	Content drip strategy
Dev roadmap promises basic features post-launch	Premature release, sequel prep
Company references player feedback as reason for adding things that were in older games	Intentional delay or spin

🔹 8. Final Take

Yes, many companies intentionally stagger content to:

Maximize profits
Maintain player interest over time
Build hype around sequels or updates

But it’s a blend of creative decision-making, technical limits, and corporate strategy. The more commercial the franchise, the more likely it’s happening.

"Let’s Be Clear: Not Everyone Can Speak for the Boxing Video Game Community"

Absolutely. Here's a long-form immersive article version of your message, designed with a narrative build-up, a clear point of view, and a call to action for developers and the community. This can be used for a blog, editorial piece, or narrated YouTube video.

Everyone Can’t Speak for the Boxing Video Game Community

Why Real Boxing Fans Deserve to Define Real Boxing Games

By [Poe]

There’s a conversation happening in the world of video games—a loud, crowded, often confused conversation. It’s about boxing video games. And the voices in the room are not always who they claim to be.

Some are gamers who grew up on Fight Night Round 3 and Champion, others are fans of UFC games looking to test out a different ring. And then there are the arcade fighter loyalists—those who prefer spectacle over science, combos over conditioning, and super meters over stamina bars. These voices are not inherently wrong for loving what they love.

But when it comes to realistic boxing video games—true simulations of the sweet science—not everyone should be allowed to speak on behalf of the community.

Realism vs. Entertainment: The False Dichotomy

For years, developers and influencers have peddled the same excuse:

“Realism is boring.”
“Simulation boxing games won’t sell.”
“We need to keep it fun.”

But who defines fun? Certainly not someone who’s never stepped into a boxing gym, who’s never watched the subtle brilliance of a Pernell Whitaker slip, or studied the punishing beauty of a Julio César Chávez body assault.

Real boxing fans find joy in the tension of a chess match between skilled pugilists. We don’t need superpowered jabs, stamina that recharges like a Call of Duty shield, or combos that would get you countered in a real ring. We find our fun in realism. In strategy. In heart. In timing. In danger.

The Disconnect: Gamers vs Boxing Fans

Let’s break it down:

Type	What They Want	What They Often Misunderstand
Boxing Fan	Real footwork, stamina, traits, clinching, counters	They don’t want button-mashing—they want boxing.
Arcade Fighter Fan	Speed, flash, combos, “fun factor”	They may confuse boxing with fighting games.
Casual Gamer	Easy pick-up play, highlight reels, knockouts	They may not care if it’s authentic—just if it’s accessible.

The problem arises when the latter two groups begin to speak louder than those who actually care about the integrity of boxing as a sport.

Worse still, when developers listen to them more.

Stop Letting the Wrong Voices Drive the Bus

There are passionate, knowledgeable boxing fans who have waited decades for an authentic simulation. They’ve been patient. They’ve studied game design, analyzed boxer AI, and crafted stat and trait systems that could rival any sports sim.

But who do developers often let in the testing rooms?

Streamers known more for hype than insight.
Arcade fighter modders who have never followed the career of a single real boxer.
Community managers who believe boxing is just “slower MMA without kicks.”

It’s disrespectful to the sport. It’s disrespectful to the community. And it’s a missed opportunity.

You Can’t Represent a Culture You Don’t Understand

It’s no different than someone walking into a soul food kitchen and trying to rewrite the recipe because they don’t “get” why the seasoning matters.

Boxing has a culture. A language. A rhythm. A legacy.
If you don’t understand why clinching matters, or how fatigue affects decision-making, or why certain boxers fight off the ropes, you shouldn’t be designing the system that governs those elements.

You wouldn’t let a baseball game be designed by someone who only plays cricket.
You wouldn’t let a racing sim be led by someone who hates braking.

Why are we letting people unfamiliar with boxing shape what a boxing simulation is?

The Way Forward: Let the Right Voices Be Heard

If a studio truly wants to make a legendary boxing game—one that earns the respect of fans and the legacy of the sport—it must:

Hire and consult real boxing minds – Trainers, cutmen, historians, former pros.
Let simulation fans lead the charge – Not override everything, but shape the core.
Create options, not compromises – Let casuals have their modes, but let boxing purists have theirs too.
Stop chasing MMA energy – Boxing is its own beast. Respect that.

Final Word:

Realism isn’t boring to a boxing fan—it’s the main event.
We aren’t here for arcade scraps in a ring-shaped cage. We’re here for the chess match. The drama. The glory of the sport in its truest form.

So next time someone says “realism doesn’t work,” remind them:
You don’t speak for all of us. You can’t speak for what you don’t understand.

Let the real boxing fans have the mic.