Thursday, August 14, 2025

Why EA Still Hasn’t Announced a New Fight Night — Even After Undisputed Proved Boxing Games Can Sell

 


Why EA Still Hasn’t Announced a New Fight Night — Even After Undisputed Proved Boxing Games Can Sell


1. EA’s Boxing Revival Was Greenlit — Then Paused

In November 2021, Video Games Chronicle reported that EA had green-lit a new Fight Night, codenamed Moneyball, but then paused development so EA Canada could focus on UFC 5.

“Don’t split the core team across two complex projects,” was the reasoning at the time (VGC, 2021).
Read the full article here.


2. Licensing Complexity — EA’s Stated Roadblock

EA has often pointed to the challenge of licensing individual boxers, promoters, and sanctioning bodies as a key hurdle. Unlike UFC, which operates under a single licensing umbrella, boxing deals must be negotiated one by one.


3. Steel City Interactive’s Licensing Feat

Here’s where the comparison gets interesting. Steel City Interactive (SCI) — an indie studio founded in 2020 — launched Undisputed in October 2024 with:

  • 200+ licensed boxers (past & present)

  • Referees, trainers, cutmen with real likenesses

  • Multiple real-world belts (WBC, IBF, WBO, etc.)

  • Announcers, promoters, and venues

They achieved this through persistent outreach, creative revenue-sharing deals, and relationship-building in the boxing world. This suggests the “licensing is too hard” explanation might be more about corporate priorities than feasibility.


4. Recent Rumors — But Still Silence From EA

After Undisputed’s launch, outlets like Game Rant noted renewed chatter that EA might revisit Fight Night. But as of August 2025, there’s been no official confirmation or denial.

One Reddit commenter summed up fan frustration:

“We’ve heard rumors for over a decade. Don’t hold your breath.”


5. Why EA Might Still Be Waiting

Factor Possible Impact
UFC focus Steadier revenue & simpler licensing
Risk management Boxing seen as a niche
Resource allocation Top dev teams tied to UFC
Market watching Waiting to see Undisputed’s long-term sales

6. The “Switch-a-Roo” Factor

Some fans feel SCI shifted Undisputed mid-development toward more arcade-style gameplay. Yet even with that pivot, it secured massive licensing deals and sold well. That success shows there is a hungry audience for realistic boxing, which makes EA’s prolonged inaction harder to justify.


Bottom Line:
SCI, with a fraction of EA’s resources, proved a boxing game can be both licensed and commercially viable. For now, fans can only keep pushing — because if Fight Night returns, it’s likely still years away.


Sources:



Wednesday, August 13, 2025

"Earning the Knockout or Winning: Why Boxing Videogames Must Reward Strategy Over Win-at-All-Costs Tactics"

 


1. The “Win at All Costs” Mindset

In many modern boxing videogames, especially online, players often abandon the sport’s tactical depth for mechanical exploits or “meta” patterns that maximize quick results.

  • Over-reliance on exploitable mechanics – Repeated same-punch spam, corner traps without setup, and unrealistic hit-stun loops.

  • Ignoring ring craft – No investment in positioning, feints, or setting traps; just forward pressure and constant output.

  • No respect for pacing – Energy systems are bypassed or gamed rather than managed, eliminating the fatigue strategy real boxing demands.

This “win first, forget realism” approach erodes both the learning curve and the authenticity of the experience.


2. How Strategy Earns the Knockout

In authentic boxing, a knockout is the product of layered tactical work, not blind aggression. In a well-designed boxing game, the following approaches should be viable routes to the KO:

A. Setting the Table

  • Establish the jab early to disguise power shots later.

  • Touch the opponent to create openings; don’t just throw for damage.

B. Creating Predictability

  • Force defensive habits by repeating certain looks, then break the pattern.

  • Use footwork and angles to funnel the opponent into vulnerable positions.

C. Systematic Targeting

  • Invest in body work to slow them down.

  • Exploit the fatigue/damage system so late-round power shots have more effect.

D. Psychological Pressure

  • Make the opponent feel they can’t win on points, coaxing them into mistakes.

  • Feint to trigger overreactions, then counter.

When these layers work together, the knockout feels earned — the result of chess-like maneuvering that happens to end violently.


3. Why Developers Should Design for Strategy

If the design rewards strategic KO setups instead of spam tactics:

  • Casual players experience more variety and learn actual boxing fundamentals.

  • Hardcore players get rewarded for deep skill expression.

  • Spectators see bouts that mirror real-life pacing, rhythm changes, and drama.

This balance requires stamina systems, realistic hit reactions, defensive viability, and AI or matchmaking that doesn’t encourage cheap patterns.

Realism is not inherently unfair. How to Stop Nerf Culture from Flattening a Boxing Sim

 

Realism is not inherently unfair. How to Stop Nerf Culture from Flattening a Boxing Sim

Thesis: Calling for “balance” by sanding down real strengths doesn’t make a better boxing game—it makes a blander one. A true sim protects boxer identity and uses counterplay, risk–reward, and system-level regulation to keep matches fair without erasing what makes each boxer unique.


1) What “balance” should mean in a sim (and what it shouldn’t)

  • Balance in a sim = fair chances to win through knowledge and execution.
    Not equal stats, not roster sameness.

  • Asymmetry is the point. Real boxing is built on unequal tools (speed, reach, power, gas tank, ring IQ) that clash in interesting ways. If everyone plays the same, it’s not boxing—it’s a generic brawler.

  • Skill expression > stat compression. Preserve real advantages; surround them with counters and costs so skill decides outcomes.


2) Styles make fights: preserve identity, map the counters

Keep these archetypes sharp—and make the counters obvious and learnable:

  • Blazing speedster (snap jab, exits on angles)
    Counters: feint to draw, step across the exit, body investment to slow legs, clinch breaks rhythm, cut the ring with proactive feet (not reactive chasing).

  • Heavy-handed pressure (power, inside work)
    Counters: first-step denial, intercepting jab/uppercut, late clinch with ref breaks, lateral exits, make him turn and reset.

  • Long, rangy out-boxer (reach control)
    Counters: fainting foot pressure, double-ups under the jab, chest-to-chest clinch entries, body hooks under the long guard.

  • Counter-puncher (timing, economy)
    Counters: feint to burn his trigger, touch high/land low, don’t overcommit in predictable patterns, accumulate to the body so counters get slower.

  • Body snatcher (attrition game)
    Counters: early pivot outs, varied guard, stab-jab back to center, punish when he squares up, demand he pay a toll on entries.

Design note: Teach these matchups in Fight Lab drills: “Beat Pressure with Angles,” “Beat Reach with Feints,” etc. Give players reps before ranked.


3) Why blanket nerfs hurt more than they help

  • Identity erasure: If power is always “too much” and speed is always “too fast,” you just created 25 clones with different faces.

  • Meta stagnation: Homogenized rosters create one boring “optimal” playstyle.

  • Community whiplash: Casuals cheer the nerf today, complain the game is lifeless tomorrow.


4) Fairness without flattening: a counterplay-first blueprint

A. Risk–reward baked into core systems

  • Stamina economy: Big shots, sprints, and whiffs should cost. A powerful boxer isn’t “OP” if missing makes him mortal in round 8.

  • Accuracy & commitment: Longer swings = more commit frames; mistime it, you’re punishable.

  • Defense entropy: Static high guard should degrade against varied attacks; intelligent defense outperforms turtling.

  • Footwork physics: Sprinting through tight turns should skid, overstep, or square you up; cutting the ring is learned, not glued.

B. Spatial and timing counters

  • True ring-cutting tools: Micro-steps, lane steals, and momentum halts that actually trap runners without speed nerfs.

  • Clinching as a rhythm reset: Legal clinch to break blitzes; refs and break mechanics keep it honest.

C. Damage & attrition that make sense

  • Targeted deterioration: Body work lowers movement & output later, not instantly; head damage should influence reaction and balance, not random KOs.

  • Cumulative risk: Repeatedly absorbing the same clean counter should quickly get dangerous—reward reading patterns.


5) Online considerations: fix the tech, not the boxer

  • Latency fairness: Input lag and bad rollback make speed and timing feel unfair. Solve netcode and input buffering before touching stats.

  • Matchmaking sanity: Protect new/casual players with MMR gates and learning playlists—don’t nerf real tools because Bronze lobbies misuse them.

  • Anti-macro/anti-spam: Detect ultra-repetitive sequences and add exposure (diminishing block efficacy, telegraph amplification) rather than nuking the move itself.


6) Education > nerfs: teach the counters

  • Fight Lab modules: Bite-sized drills with measurable goals:
    “Cut Off the Exit 3x,” “Make the Counter-Puncher Swing at Air,” “Enter/Exit Clinch Cleanly,” “3-Phase Body Investment.”

  • Coach overlays: Mid-fight prompts that suggest the right adjustment (“He’s pivoting left; step across and hook the body.”).

  • Replay with telemetry: Show where you lost the lane, when stamina cratered, and which pattern you repeated.


7) Tuning philosophy: scalpel, not sledgehammer

  • Exploit vs. expression test

    • Exploit: Abuses animation loopholes, cancels, or networking quirks → Fix immediately.

    • Expression: Real technique used well → Leave it. Provide counters.

  • No global nerfs for local problems: If one combo is oppressive on one archetype, adjust that interaction, not everyone’s power.

  • Archetype guardrails: Lock minimum/maximum bands for core identity stats (e.g., a puncher’s power never drops below X).

  • Per-mode tuning: Sim Ranked preserves identity; Casual/Arcade can run gentler stamina/damage—without touching Sim.

  • Transparent patch notes: State the why and show the counter that now works.


8) What to nerf vs. what to never nerf

Nerf/Fix these (fast):

  • Animation exploits, cancel bugs, phantom range, rollback abuse

  • Infinite stunlocks, hitstun loops, unblockable setups

  • Foot-skating teleports, “sticky” homing entries, collision desyncs

Do not nerf these (protect identity):

  • A puncher’s ability to end a fight with a clean shot

  • A speedster’s ability to win the footrace if they pay stamina and risk on exits

  • A long-armed jab that controls distance (teach the slip/step, don’t shorten the reach)

  • A body snatcher’s late-round payoff from sustained investment


9) Systems that naturally regulate “OP” play

  • Stamina with intent: Tie cost to intensity + failure. A missed overhand at full sprint should hurt your bar.

  • Whiff punish windows: Larger on big shots; smaller on short, tight counters.

  • Guard diversity: High guard strong vs straight head shots, weaker vs hooks to ribs; Philly shell strong vs single shots, vulnerable to layered feint–body–hook.

  • Ref presence: Break stalemates, warn for excessive holding, enforce pace changes like a real fight.


10) Community management without caving to nerf culture

  • Data-led dev blogs: “Power KOs occurred in 7.2% of exchanges; after body investment they rose to 12.9% in rounds 7–10—this is intentional.”

  • Counterplay spotlights: Weekly clips showing “How to beat X” with inputs and footwork lanes annotated.

  • Ranked integrity: Separate Sim Ranked from Arcade Quickplay and keep tuning walls between them.


11) Concrete “Do this, not that”

  • Do: Increase recovery on missed overhands so spacing matters.
    Don’t: Lower global power.

  • Do: Add ring-cut assists (angle-steal inputs, momentum checks).
    Don’t: Slow the speedster’s baseline speed.

  • Do: Enhance body shot payoff after 30+ meaningful touches.
    Don’t: Make early body taps cause instant slow-mo.

  • Do: Detect and decay effectiveness of identical 1–1–1–1 spam.
    Don’t: Nerf the jab as a skillful setup tool.


12) Onboarding that turns casuals into students of the sport

  • Scenario ladders: “Beat Fast Hands,” “Beat Tall Out-Boxer,” “Beat Iron Chin” with clear counter goals.

  • Prompts from the corner: “Cut his left exit with a half-step; then dig the right to the liver.”

  • Progression that rewards craft: XP tied to successful counters and ring craft, not just damage dealt.


13) Patch-note template that respects realism

Targeted Change: Increased whiff recovery on overhand rights by 6 frames only when thrown from a sprinting entry, to reward spacing and timing.
Why: Sprint-overhand sequences were safe on miss due to momentum carry; now punishable if read.
What Didn’t Change: Base power and on-hit frames remain intact to preserve knockout potential.


14) A practical checklist for devs

  • Archetype guardrails set (min/max for identity stats)

  • Fight Lab counter drills authored for each matchup

  • Stamina costs tied to intensity + failure, not just volume

  • Whiff punish windows audited across punches

  • Anti-spam exposure system enabled

  • Separate Sim/Arcade tuning banks locked

  • Netcode latency tests pass before any stat pass

  • Patch notes explain counters, not just numbers


Closing

You’re right: some fans don’t actually want “balance”—they want sameness so they never have to solve a style puzzle. A serious boxing game should resist that pressure. Keep the tools sharp, make the counters learnable, and let the ring craft—not stat flattening—decide who wins.

Essential Hires for a Realistic Boxing Video Game (Steel City Interactive or Any Studio)



Essential Hires for a Realistic Boxing Video Game (Steel City Interactive or Any Studio)

These are the roles you cannot skip if you want a true sim boxing game. Anything outside this list risks bloating the budget without adding core realism.


Leadership & Direction (3 total)

  1. Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – 1 person – Oversees vision and realism.

  2. Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – 1 person – Protects authenticity across all systems.

  3. Technical Director – 1 person – Guides technical choices, performance, and pipelines.


Boxing Authenticity & AI (4 total)

  1. Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – 1 person – Builds the style/personality database for every boxer.

  2. AI & Tendency Engineer (Boxing AI) – 1 person – Implements adaptive fight styles.

  3. Professional Boxing Consultant – 1 person – Retired pro or elite trainer for realism checks.

  4. Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – 1 person – Ensures era-accurate tendencies and rosters.


Core Gameplay Development (5 total)

  1. Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – 1 person – Implements punches, movement, stamina, and damage.

  2. Physics Programmer – 1 person – Handles glove impact, hit reactions, and falls.

  3. Animation Programmer (Combat) – 1 person – Integrates mocap with responsive controls.

  4. Fight Systems Designer – 1 person – Balances stamina, damage, clinching, and vulnerabilities.

  5. Procedural Animation Engineer – 1 person – Handles fatigue posture, weight shifts, and dynamic foot planting.


Animation & Mocap (3 total)

  1. Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – 1 person – Oversees punch, defense, and footwork animations.

  2. Mocap Director – 1 person – Directs real boxers in mocap sessions.

  3. Mocap Cleanup Artist – 1 person – Prepares animation data for gameplay.


Presentation & Broadcast (3 total)

  1. Presentation Director – 1 person – Oversees cameras, commentary flow, and fight-night atmosphere.

  2. UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Builds fight HUD, menus, and career mode interfaces.

  3. Commentary Writer / Audio Director – 1 person – Creates dynamic, context-aware commentary.


Testing & Stability (2 total)

  1. QA Lead (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Oversees testing for realism and stability.

  2. Network Engineer – 1 person – Ensures stable online play and lag compensation.


Essential Team Size

  • Minimum for a true sim: 20 key hires

  • SCI currently has: 3–4 of these roles (Game Director, QA Lead, some Audio/Narrative staff)

  • Critical Missing Roles: All AI authenticity hires, combat programmers, mocap specialists, and presentation leadership.


Why Cut the Fat

Roles like extra marketing assistants, multiple environment artists, or oversized narrative teams can come later — after the core boxing experience works. The above list ensures that the mechanics, authenticity, and presentation are locked in first, which is what sells a simulation boxing game to both hardcore and casual fans.



Phase 1 – Build the Realism Core (First 3–4 Months)

Goal: Establish the vision, secure authenticity, and start AI/boxing systems early.

  1. Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – If not already in place.

  2. Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – Protects boxing authenticity from day one.

  3. Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – Builds the style/personality database; critical for AI realism.

  4. AI & Tendency Engineer (Boxing AI) – Starts coding adaptive fight styles early.

  5. Professional Boxing Consultant – Guides realism in all decisions.

  6. Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – Feeds historical data into boxer templates.

By the end of Phase 1, you have the boxing brain trust and AI foundation locked in, so the rest of development builds on a realistic core.


Phase 2 – Core Gameplay Systems (Months 4–8)

Goal: Make the fighting itself feel authentic before adding presentation polish.

  1. Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – Implements punches, movement, stamina, and damage logic.

  2. Physics Programmer – Starts work on glove impact, knockdowns, and body physics.

  3. Animation Programmer (Combat) – Bridges mocap with gameplay systems.

  4. Fight Systems Designer – Balances mechanics like clinching, damage, and fatigue.

  5. Procedural Animation Engineer – Adds weight shifts, foot planting, and fatigue posture.

By the end of Phase 2, you should have a playable prototype with realistic boxer movement, punches, stamina, and basic AI.


Phase 3 – Animation & Mocap Integration (Months 6–10)

Goal: Replace placeholders with real boxing animations.

  1. Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – Directs the animation style.

  2. Mocap Director – Oversees shoots with real boxers.

  3. Mocap Cleanup Artist – Cleans data for integration.

By the end of Phase 3, the game looks and moves like boxing, not a generic brawler.


Phase 4 – Presentation & Fight-Night Atmosphere (Months 8–12)

Goal: Make the game feel like televised boxing.

  1. Presentation Director – Creates authentic camera work and arena atmosphere.

  2. UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – Builds the fight HUD and menus.

  3. Commentary Writer / Audio Director – Starts scripting context-aware commentary.

By the end of Phase 4, the game has a broadcast-level presentation layer to sell the realism.


Phase 5 – Testing & Online Stability (Ongoing from Month 10 onward)

Goal: Ensure the experience holds up in solo and online play.

  1. QA Lead (Sports Focus) – Oversees ongoing testing for realism and bugs.

  2. Network Engineer – Builds lag compensation and stable matchmaking.


Hiring Priority Rule

  • Early hires = Direct impact on authenticity and mechanics.

  • Mid hires = Animation and presentation once the core works.

  • Late hires = Stability and polish roles for final refinement.


Tuesday, August 12, 2025

The Realistic Boxing Video Game Dream: Who Steel City Interactive or Any Other Company Needs to Hire — and Who They Already Have

 



The Realistic Boxing Video Game Dream: Who Steel City Interactive or Any Other Company  Needs to Hire — and Who They Already Have

If you want to build the most authentic, simulation-based boxing video game ever made, the team you assemble is just as important as the game design itself. The problem is, most studios — including Steel City Interactive (SCI), developers of Undisputed — underestimate the breadth and depth of talent required to pull this off.

Making a boxing sim isn’t just about coding punches and building arenas. It’s about integrating boxing history, fight science, broadcast presentation, adaptive AI, and deep career progression into one coherent package. And for that, you need the right people in the right roles — not just boxing “fans” or generic game developers.

Below is the realistic hiring checklist for any company trying to create a true boxing simulation, complete with how many people you need in each role, what SCI already has, and what they’re missing.


1. Leadership & Direction (6 total)

  • Game Director (Sports/Combat Specialist) – 1 person – SCI has Jxxxx Dxxxx (since May 2024).

  • Creative Director (Boxing Focus) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Technical Director – 1 person – Missing.

  • Production Managers – 3 people – Missing. Oversees scheduling, budgeting, and milestone tracking.


2. Boxing Knowledge & Authenticity (9 total)

  • Boxing Historian / Stats Analyst – 1 person – Missing.

  • Professional Boxing Consultant(s) – 2–3 people – Missing. Mix of retired pros/trainers.

  • AI & Tendency Designer – 1 person – Missing. Creates adaptive fight logic that mimics real-life tendencies.

  • Referee / Judge Consultants – 1–2 people – Missing.

  • Cutman / Trainer Consultant – 1 person – Missing.

  • Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer – 1-3 people – Critical missing role.

    • Oversees all boxer-specific data including fight styles, mentalities, strengths, weaknesses, stamina curves, and psychological behaviors.

    • Integrates with AI systems so boxers fight according to their real-life skillset and personality.


3. Gameplay & AI Development (12 total)

  • Lead Gameplay Programmer (Combat Systems) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Gameplay Programmers – 3 people – Missing.

  • AI Engineer (Boxing AI) – 2 people – Missing.

  • Animation Programmer (Combat) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Physics Programmer – 1 person – Missing.

  • Fight Systems Designer – 1 person – Missing.

  • Technical Combat Designer – 3 people – Missing.


4. Animation & Mocap (10 total)

  • Lead Animator (Boxing Specialist) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Animators (Combat Focus) – 4 people – Missing.

  • Mocap Director – 1 person – Missing.

  • Mocap Cleanup Artists – 2 people – Missing.

  • Procedural Animation Engineer – 2 people – Missing.


5. Presentation & Broadcast (9 total)

  • Presentation Director – 1 person – Missing.

  • UI/UX Designer (Sports Focus) – 2 people – Missing.

  • Commentary Writer / Audio Director – 1 person – Missing.

  • Sound Designers – 2 people – SCI has audio staff, with Senior Audio Designer role open.

  • Lighting Artist – 1 person – Missing.

  • Broadcast Camera Artist – 2 people – Missing.


6. Modes & Content (8 total)

  • Lead Designer – Career Mode – 1 person – Missing.

  • Career Mode Designers – 2 people – Missing.

  • Narrative Designer – 1 person – Partial (SCI has Junior Narrative Designer xxx xxxx).

  • Online Systems Designer – 2 people – Missing.

  • Economy & Live Content Designer – 1 person – Missing.

  • Quest/Scenario Designer – 1 person – Missing.


7. Art & Asset Production (12 total)

  • Character Artist (Realism Focus) – 2 people – Missing.

  • Environment Artist – 2 people – Missing.

  • Clothing & Gear Artist – 2 people – Missing.

  • Texture/Shader Artist – 2 people – Missing.

  • VFX Artist (Impact/Particles) – 2 people – Missing.

  • Crowd/Prop Artist – 2 people – Missing.


8. Technical & Support (7 total)

  • Technical Artist – 2 people – Missing.

  • QA Lead (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Covered (xxx xxxxxxxx).

  • QA Testers – 2–3 people – Missing (sports simulation focus).

  • Build Engineer – 1 person – Missing.

  • Network Engineer – 1 person – Missing.


9. Licensing, Marketing & Partnerships (6 total)

  • Licensing Manager – 1 person – Missing.

  • Licensing Assistants – 1–2 people – Missing.

  • Community Manager (Boxing Knowledge) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Marketing Director (Sports Focus) – 1 person – Missing.

  • Marketing Artists/Editors – 1–2 people – Missing.


Total Recommended Studio Size

For a fully realized boxing simulation:

  • Minimum Core – 55–65 developers/staff

  • Ideal Full Team – 90–110 developers/staff (plus external mocap boxers, voice actors, and contractors)

  • Mocap Talent Pool – 10–20 boxers of varied styles and eras

  • External Partners – CompuBox, BoxRec, sports broadcasters


SCI’s Current Reality

Steel City Interactive currently has:

  • ✅ Game Director (Sports/Combat)

  • ✅ QA Lead

  • ✅ Audio Staff (expanding)

  • ✅ Junior Narrative Designer

  • ❌ Missing most combat, animation, authenticity, presentation, and tendency/attribute roles

That means SCI has about 5–6 of the 90+ people needed for a true full-scale sim boxing game — with the rest still missing or outsourced.


Why This Matters

Without core boxing authenticity hires, specialist programmers, and presentation experts, SCI risks Undisputed becoming another “boxing-flavored fighting game” rather than the immersive sim they promised.

The “NBA 2K of boxing” requires the same discipline, staffing, and creative vision — just in a different sport. One of the most urgent hires is a Tendencies, Capabilities, Traits & Attributes Designer — without this role, the AI will never truly represent the sport’s diversity in styles, personalities, and skillsets.

The roadmap is clear: hire the missing expertise in the right order, secure authenticity partners, and commit to realism over arcade compromises.



What Steel City Interactive Can Learn from Digital Extremes (Warframe)



What Steel City Interactive Can Learn from Digital Extremes (Warframe)

Adapting Proven Long-Term Live Service Success to Build a True Boxing Simulation


1. Community Engagement & Transparency

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Devstreams: Regular, scheduled streams where the actual developers—not just PR—show work-in-progress content, explain decisions, and even admit when something didn’t work.

  • Direct Dev Access: Designers, animation leads, and gameplay directors appear on camera so players get answers straight from decision-makers.

  • Detailed Roadmaps: They share clear timelines for features, mechanics, and story beats, while updating when things shift.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Replace vague marketing posts with consistent, detailed communication from key members of the dev team.

  • Publish mechanics-focused roadmaps—not just DLC or patch dates—so players know when core boxing systems like referees, clinching, and boxer tendencies are coming.

  • Host regular unfiltered Q&A sessions, even when the answers might not please everyone.


2. Respect the Core Game Identity

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Warframe evolved, but never abandoned its “space ninja” core identity.

  • New content builds on the existing foundation instead of replacing it.

  • When mechanics change, the devs explain why and keep fan-favorite systems.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Stop removing the simulation mechanics that brought boxing purists in.

  • Ensure real-life boxer strengths and weaknesses—speed, power, reach, stamina—are represented accurately and not “balanced out” for esports fairness.

    • Sugar Ray Leonard should feel lightning fast.

    • Foreman should hit like a truck but gas out quicker.

    • Ali should have unmatched footwork and ring control.

  • Evolve features instead of flattening them into a generic arcade mold.


3. Iterative Content Instead of Long Silences

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Frequent small-to-medium updates keep the game fresh.

  • Experimental content is released in early form for feedback before full rollout.

  • Player reactions help refine features before they’re permanent.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Deliver mechanics in stages:

    • Add basic referee AI first, improve animations and calls over time.

    • Introduce a few boxer-specific tendencies per update.

  • Avoid waiting months for “all or nothing” updates—feed the game regularly.


4. Deep Player & Expert Feedback Integration

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Uses veteran player councils to test unreleased content and give raw feedback.

  • Implements community-created ideas and assets into the actual game.

  • Publicly acknowledges and reverses unpopular changes.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Create a Boxing Council of real boxers, trainers, historians, and experienced boxing gamers.

  • Pay these experts or offer them licensing/DLC revenue shares for their input.

  • Reverse or adjust features if they damage realism—don’t double down on bad pivots.


5. Fair Monetization & Boxer Compensation

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Monetization is cosmetic-first—core gameplay isn’t pay-to-win.

  • Premium content is also earnable through gameplay.

  • Players see spending as support, not as buying an advantage.

What SCI Could Learn

  • DLC can be a win-win:

    • Use DLC sales to fairly compensate real boxers for their likeness and keep the roster growing.

    • Ensure every boxer is implemented with accurate attributes—don’t nerf or buff them to fit a “meta.”

    • Communicate clearly that part of DLC revenue goes directly to boxer licensing.

  • Sell venue packs, historic fight presentation packs, and customization—not competitive advantages.


6. Event-Based Player Retention

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Seasonal events keep the community engaged.

  • Events tie into lore and world-building.

  • Exclusive rewards show veteran status.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Host historical boxing events (e.g., “Golden Age Heavyweights” with era presentation).

  • Run special rules modes: 15-round era fights, bare-knuckle exhibitions.

  • Offer exclusive cosmetics or commentary packs as event rewards.


7. Longevity Through Layered Systems

What Digital Extremes Does Well

  • Multiple deep systems—modding, lore, crafting—give long-term mastery goals.

  • New systems expand, not replace, old ones.

What SCI Could Learn

  • Expand beyond single fight modes:

    • Deep career with aging, peak years, legacy tracking.

    • Fighter creator with realistic stat/tendency customization.

    • Historical rivalries mode with era-accurate rules and presentation.

  • Create meta-progression so players stick around for years, not months.


Bottom Line

Digital Extremes turned Warframe from a struggling launch into a long-running success because they:

  • Stayed loyal to their core vision while evolving.

  • Collaborated with players and experts.

  • Used monetization to support content and pay contributors fairly.

  • Avoided diluting the fantasy that made the game unique.

If SCI adopts these principles—and combines them with accurate boxer representation, fair DLC-driven compensation for real boxers, and refusal to “balance away” real-life skillsUndisputed could mature into the definitive, long-running boxing simulation rather than a short-lived curiosity.



Sunday, August 10, 2025

Podcast Script – “The State of SCI: Deception, Downplaying, and the Death of a Vision”

Some of this information is reinforced by veteran game developers I have been conversing with.


Podcast Script – “The State of SCI: Deception, Downplaying, and the Death of a Vision”


Opening Segment – Setting the Tone

“Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re cutting through the smoke and mirrors surrounding Steel City Interactive and the Undisputed boxing game.
We’re talking inexperienced hires, deceptive messaging, questionable bans, ignored fan feedback — and why SCI is treating passionate, knowledgeable boxing fans like we’re clueless.”


Segment 1 – Raczilla’s Return & Deceptive Framing

  • Will “Raczilla” Kinsler reappears on Discord, but instead of transparency, he reframes past events.

    • Calls playable ESBC builds “videos” to downplay that they were functional representations of Ash Habib’s original vision.

    • Uses “It was before my time” as a distancing tactic to avoid accountability for the game’s drastic pivot.

    • Worse — he appears to have sidelined Ash’s vision and restarted with his own direction: a hybrid, arcadey boxing game that no core fan asked for.

    • The sim foundation Ash was building toward? Gone. What we have now feels closer to EA Fight Night than the “NBA 2K of boxing” that was promised.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why call a playable build a “video” unless you’re trying to erase the context?

  2. Was the restart designed to push out sim mechanics in favor of arcade gameplay?

  3. How much of the current product is Raczilla’s vision, not Ash’s?

  4. Why did communication shift from hype to corporate spin?


Segment 2 – Downplaying Boxing Credentials

  • Moderators and community managers downplay or dismiss my boxing background and accolades.

    • “We have boxing fans on the team” gets used as PR cover — but having “fans” isn’t the same as having seasoned boxers influencing gameplay.

    • I’ve had decades of involvement, fought amateur and pro, and spoken with countless developers.

    • This isn’t ego — it’s about removing qualified voices from the room.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why dismiss actual boxing expertise while elevating those with little to no combat sports dev background?

  2. When did real boxing credentials stop mattering for a boxing game?

  3. Is SCI intentionally avoiding voices that might challenge their direction?


Segment 3 – Inexperienced Hires

  • SCI is stacking the team with inexperienced developers over proven talent.

    • Is this to save money or to avoid pushback on design choices?

    • The result is inconsistent systems, half-finished mechanics, and questionable decisions.

Talking prompts:

  1. Who’s doing the hiring, and why prioritize inexperience?

  2. How many on the team have zero boxing or sports sim history?

  3. Is this about control rather than quality?


Segment 4 – The Head of Design/Game Director Problem

  • The Head of Design/Game Director has no sports or combat gaming history.

    • His track record is in writing books — but book writing doesn’t deliver the realism boxing fans want.

    • Leadership without domain expertise risks design decisions disconnected from the sport.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why is the top creative role filled by someone without the relevant background?

  2. Does book-writing experience translate into boxing sim design?

  3. How can fans trust the vision without proven combat sports game leadership?


Segment 5 – Why Didn’t SCI Hire Poe?

  • SCI claimed they weren’t hiring outside the UK — then brought in Todd Grisham, Boxing Fanatico, Will Kinsler, JxShepp, and more from the U.S.

    • Meanwhile, I was passed over despite decades of experience and advocacy for realistic boxing games.

    • Some hires had no dev background — just casual boxing fandom.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why the “UK-only” claim if multiple U.S. hires were made?

  2. Were they avoiding someone who knows the sport too well?

  3. Why choose unqualified casuals over boxing/game experts?


Segment 6 – Ash Habib’s Decisions

  • If investors and publishers were the bottleneck, why didn’t Ash buy them out or renegotiate?

    • He had community trust, momentum, and a unique product.

    • The pivot to an EA-style hybrid was not what the original backers supported.

    • Was Ash sidelined from his own project?

Talking prompts:

  1. Was the “NBA 2K of boxing” line just marketing?

  2. Why not protect the original vision at all costs?

  3. Could early sales success have been used to regain control?


Segment 7 – The “Lost” Source Code & WIP Myth

  • SCI acts like old builds, WIP code, and assets are gone.

    • Reality: studios always keep archives.

    • Suggesting otherwise insults anyone who’s been around game development.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why pretend restoring old builds isn’t possible?

  2. Is this just to avoid returning to more sim-accurate versions?

  3. Are they hiding that the old mechanics were better for realism?


Segment 8 – Leafy’s Ban & The “Movement With No Specifics”

  • Leafy’s Discord ban looked like silencing a critic more than enforcing rules.

    • Talk of “movement” in development without dates or details is empty PR.

Talking prompts:

  1. Was the ban about rule-breaking or shutting down dissent?

  2. Is vagueness on progress deliberate to hide delays?

  3. How do fans stay engaged when updates say nothing concrete?


Segment 9 – The AI Developer Problem & Publisher/Investor Mindset

  • SCI removed their AI developer and never replaced them.

    • AI is the brain of a boxing game — without it, there’s no realism in tendencies, decision-making, or style.

    • Investors/publishers still think arcade sports games sell better, stuck 20–30 years in the past.

    • DLC won’t sell if the base game lacks authentic mechanics.

Talking prompts:

  1. Why no AI developer replacement?

  2. Do decision-makers even want a sim boxing game?

  3. Who’s really calling the shots?

  4. Is “transparency” a smokescreen?


Segment 10 – What’s Possible vs. What We’re Getting

If the Big Dogs Made a Boxing Game

  • EA Sports: Big-budget realism possible, but gamers doubt they’d go sim. Could deliver dynamic career, true stamina/damage, official belts.

  • 2K Sports: Deepest career/promoter mode in history, with a living boxing world.

  • Konami (Victorious Boxers): Best footwork/stamina in the genre, modernized for motion-matched animation and style realism.

  • Capcom: Esports-ready controls and precision.

  • Sega/RGG Studio: Story-driven career with gym building and side content.

  • Rockstar Games: Open-world boxing drama from underground fights to world titles.

Past Games in Today’s Tech

  • Fight Night Champion: 4K, ray-traced arenas, physics-based damage.

  • Victorious Boxers: Perfect movement, stamina realism, hybrid anime/realism visuals.

  • Knockout Kings: Huge rosters, era-specific presentation.

Modern Modes That Could Be Delivered

  1. Full Career Mode

  2. Promoter Mode

  3. Legacy Mode

  4. Esports Circuit

  5. Cinematic Story Mode

  6. Historic Rivalries

  7. Amateur Circuit

  8. Gym Builder

  9. Community Creation Suite


Transition:

“That’s what’s possible. That’s what other companies could deliver right now. Now let’s look at what SCI is not delivering…”


Fan Wishlist vs. SCI Silence

Core Mechanics & Gameplay:

  • CAB revamp, more slots, weight scaling, separate punch styles, clinching with punches, more taunts, more illegal blows, correct styles, fixed haymakers, unique power punches, logo creator, community creations, more stances, full-time ref.

AI & Realism:

  • Replace AI developer, add realistic tendencies, fix footwork, stamina realism, dynamic damage, feints, pivots, ring craft.

Transparency & Trust:

  • Why ban Leafy, no hiring transparency, vague “movement” updates, unqualified hires.

Publishers & Direction:

  • Why investors still think arcade > sim, why DLC over core fixes, why pivot from Ash’s vision.


Closing punch for the segment:

“One side is what’s possible, the other is what we’re actually getting — and the gap between those two is where this game is losing the very fans it was built for.”


Segment 11 – Additional Critical Questions for SCI

  • Why are key elements still absent?

  • Why act like sim realism is niche?

  • Why moderate criticism instead of addressing it?

  • Who’s making the real decisions?

  • Why not be transparent about mechanic removals?


Segment 12 – Your Perspective

  • Decorated amateur career.

  • Professional boxing experience.

  • Spoke with countless developers.

  • Advocate for realistic boxing games for decades.

  • This isn’t ego — it’s holding SCI accountable to its original promise.


Mic Drop Closer – “Boxers & Fans: No More ‘It’s Just a Game’”

“Boxers — past and present — it’s time to speak up.
Too often, we hear ‘It’s just a game’ as an excuse for watered-down, inaccurate portrayals.
But a boxing video game isn’t just a game. For millions of people, it’s their first — and maybe only — introduction to the sport.
And if that game misrepresents boxing, then it’s misrepresenting you.”


  • If you’re Muhammad Ali, your footwork and ring generalship should be exact.

  • If you’re Mike Tyson, your peek-a-boo style and explosive hooks should feel like Tyson, not “generic brawler.”

  • If you’re Mayweather, your shoulder roll and defensive counters need to be on point.

  • If you’re Lomachenko, your angles and pivots should be yours — not a re-skin of someone else’s moves.

  • If you’re Katie Taylor, Claressa Shields, or Amanda Serrano, your craft deserves the same depth and detail as any male champion.


“Silence lets developers cut corners and hide behind ‘nobody asked for it.’
Well, we’re asking — and not just fans. Boxers and fans together are unstoppable.”


Rapid-Fire Demands

  1. Authentic tendencies — no generic punch patterns.

  2. Signature styles and movements, down to the smallest details.

  3. Real boxing mechanics — clinches, pivots, inside fighting.

  4. Full-time referees.

  5. Accurate weight scaling.

  6. Deep, customizable boxer creation.

  7. Style-specific power punches.

  8. Smarter, adaptive AI.

  9. Transparent roadmaps.

  10. Publishers and investors listen to fans.


*Alicia Bum Gardener was very outspoken.

“Boxers, this is your legacy. Fans, this is our sport.
Together, we demand realism — and we won’t stop until we get it.
Because boxing is bigger than any one game, and it deserves the truth.”



Closing

“The boxing gaming community isn’t as naive as some in SCI think. We’ve been here long before this game, we’ll be here long after, and we know when we’re being fed half-truths.
You can water down mechanics, you can spin words, but you can’t erase what we’ve seen, played, and believed in.
The truth is in the code — and no matter what they tell you, the code is still there.”


Friday, August 8, 2025

Poe Podcast EP 14 Undisputed Boxing Round Table Discussion The Firing of Steves

How Will “Raczilla” Kinsler Steered Undisputed Away from Ash Habib’s Original Vision

 


How Will “Raczilla” Kinsler Steered Undisputed Away from Ash Habib’s Original Vision

When Ash Habib first introduced Esports Boxing Club (ESBC) to the world, he sold boxing fans on a dream: a true simulation — the NBA 2K of boxing. We were shown early builds with physics-based blocking, precision footwork, deep AI tendencies, referee integration, and pacing that felt closer to a real bout than anything since Fight Night Champion.

For fans who had gone a decade without a proper boxing sim, this was lightning in a bottle. The excitement was real. The mechanics were there. The vision was clear.

But somewhere along the way, that vision started to shift.


Enter Will “Raczilla” Kinsler

When Raczilla joined Steel City Interactive, he didn’t come in as a nameless employee. His résumé carried weight — EA Tiburon, Epic Games, years in community and publishing roles. At SCI, he began as Comms Director, but eventually took on the title of Authenticity Director, a role that gave him access to multiple teams and the power to shape how “authenticity” would be defined inside the studio.

Publicly, he’s always been careful. In the Undisputed Discord, his words are measured, often framed in a way that projects collaboration without direct ownership of decisions.


The Collaboration Shield

Again and again in public chat, Raczilla leans on the same framing:

"I'm more of a collaborator… I provide information rather than being someone who would veto a decision."

It’s a clever position. On one hand, it sounds humble — just another team member, offering thoughts. On the other, “providing information” to the right people at the right time is exactly how influence works in development. He doesn’t have to “veto” to set a course.


Rewriting the Past: The ‘Video’ Move

One of the most telling exchanges comes when fans bring up the original ESBC build — the one that hooked so many of us. Instead of acknowledging it as a playable version of the game, Raczilla reframes it:

"What you're seeing here isn't a game but a small slice of something that's work in progress… We're comparing a video and a game… it's apples and oranges."

By calling it a “video,” he subtly strips it of its credibility as a reference point. You can’t reasonably compare a “video” to a live game build, right? That’s the idea. It’s a linguistic sleight of hand that turns tangible evidence of the original vision into something abstract and dismissible.


Redefining ‘Authenticity’

In almost every message about direction, Raczilla keeps the word “authenticity” front and center.

"I focus a lot on the fighters but jump around and collaborate with different teams in terms of providing feedback and info to help us keep moving toward authenticity."

The problem is that “authenticity” has become elastic. Under Ash’s early vision, it meant simulation realism. Under Raczilla’s influence, it’s been reframed to coexist with faster pacing, esports balancing, and arcade-friendly mechanics. Authenticity now means “as authentic as we can be while keeping it fun for everyone” — which is a far cry from the sim-first promises that sold this project.


The Development Struggle Narrative

Whenever pushback hits, Raczilla often returns to a familiar defense:

"Anything and everything in this project has been done by SCI for the very first time. Sometimes that's been messy!"

On its own, that’s true — first-time studios do face steep learning curves. But as a public statement, it’s a way to make removed features, slowed AI development, and mechanical pivots sound like unavoidable growing pains rather than conscious design changes.


The Source Code Question

One of the strangest claims to come out of SCI in recent months is the suggestion that they no longer have access to certain work-in-progress builds or source code from earlier in development. For anyone with even passing knowledge of game production, that’s almost unthinkable.

Source code, prototypes, and in-progress models are always archived — not just for legal and historical reasons, but for technical ones. Studios store every branch, every major milestone, and every playable test build, often across multiple backups, precisely so they can revisit and reuse earlier work.

To say it’s been “lost” is either a serious red flag about project management or an intentional distancing from that version of the game — a version that fans have been asking about ever since the mechanics started shifting.


The Hypnotic Loop

The pattern becomes clear if you’ve been in the Discord long enough:

  1. Acknowledge frustration. (“I understand where you’re coming from.”)

  2. Affirm the love for boxing. (“I’m a fan of the vision too.”)

  3. Reassure progress. (“We’re moving toward authenticity.”)

  4. Redirect to safe topics. (Community building, content creators, development challenges.)

It’s a loop that keeps fans from staying locked on the uncomfortable question: Why does the game no longer play like the sim we were promised?


Ash’s Vision vs. Today’s Game

By the time Undisputed hit its current state:

  • Physics-based blocking was gone.

  • Precision small-step movement was cut back.

  • Referees were reduced to minimal presentation.

  • AI tendencies — once a big selling point — were scaled down.

  • The pace shifted toward quicker, esports-style exchanges.

Yet in interviews and community chats, Ash’s language has started to echo the “balanced for fun” framing we hear from Raczilla. The once crystal-clear sim-first identity has blurred into a hybrid product.


Why This Matters

This isn’t just about one person. It’s about how easily a niche sports game can drift from its original mission when messaging control, community framing, and behind-the-scenes influence converge.

Raczilla’s role isn’t openly dictatorial — it’s persuasive. His constant reassurance, careful word choice, and strategic reframing act like a slow, steady current. You don’t notice the shift until you realize you’re miles away from where you started.

For many fans, the dream of a true sim boxing game was the reason they backed ESBC from the start. Today, that dream feels further away than ever — not because the tech can’t handle it, but because the definition of “authentic” has been rewritten, and the evidence of what once was is being treated as if it never existed.


If you’ve been wondering how Undisputed drifted from Ash’s bold promises to the more cautious, esports-friendly product we see now, the trail is right there in the public messages. And if you’ve been feeling like the change happened without you realizing — well, that’s how subtle influence works.

Reframing the Truth: Where's ESBC!




1. The Core PR Tactic: The “Team Decision” Shield

When Raczilla says “we collaborated with the other developers on the team” (or variations like “we worked together on this”), it operates as a blame diffuser:

  • It protects him personally from being singled out for unpopular choices.

  • It makes it harder for fans to push back, because the “team” is now a faceless group you can’t directly confront.

  • It reframes the change as collective wisdom instead of one person’s push.

Translation: “It wasn’t just me. You can’t accuse me of steering the game away from what you wanted — it’s what the team decided.”


2. Historical Examples from Raczilla

Here’s where you see this tactic in action:

Example A — The Old ESBC Build “Video”

  • What he said:

    “We’re comparing a video and a game… this particular video was a little before I joined, so I may not have all the context.”

  • Hidden move:

    • Calls an actual early build a “video” to devalue it.

    • Adds “before I joined” so he can’t be tied to removing those mechanics.

    • No mention of who on the “team” decided to move away from Ash’s original vision.

  • Effect: He’s absolved of responsibility for the pivot, while implying “the team” naturally evolved the game.


Example B — Feature Cuts / Direction Changes

  • What he says in these cases:

    “We collaborate as a team on these decisions.”
    “The developers work together to decide what’s best for the game.”

  • Hidden move:

    • Frames removed features (physics-based blocking, certain movement mechanics) as consensus, not leadership override.

    • Avoids acknowledging why these features were cut — or who argued for their removal.

  • Effect: The conversation shifts from “Why did you change this?” to “I guess the whole team thought it was better this way.”


3. Why This Works for Him

  1. Vagueness = Safety
    By never naming individuals or outlining the process, there’s no paper trail that ties a controversial choice to him.

  2. Leverages the “Team Player” Image
    Fans are less likely to attack someone who appears collaborative.

  3. Deflects Accountability
    If something flops, it’s the team’s fault. If it works, he can still claim involvement.


4. How to Recognize the Pattern

Every time Raczilla uses the “team collaboration” line, check for:

  • Timing: Is it right after being asked about a missing feature, unpopular change, or design direction?

  • Detail: Is there zero explanation of the actual decision-making process?

  • Framing: Is he aligning himself with the majority while also distancing himself from the origin of the choice?

If all three are true → it’s a PR shield.


5. Why It Matters in the Undisputed Context

  • The old ESBC vision was Ash Habib’s — heavier on realism, tendencies, and authentic boxing feel.

  • Post-Raczilla shift → more arcade-style pacing, feature cuts, and an eSports-like focus.

  • When fans question the pivot, the “team collaboration” phrasing makes it seem like this was a natural, unanimous evolution — not something driven by a new internal philosophy.

  • This tactic lets him rewrite the game’s history without ever saying “I made that call.”


6. The Pattern Across Gaming PR

This isn’t unique to SCI — but the danger here is that boxing fans have less leverage than bigger game communities. In studios like:

  • BioWare (Mass Effect: Andromeda) → blamed “team decisions” when controversial story/animation changes were actually mandated by a small leadership group.

  • Blizzard (Overwatch 2) → “team collaboration” used to deflect criticism for cutting PvE campaigns.

  • EA (Fight Night Champion follow-up) → “team effort” statements masked the removal of simulation-heavy boxing elements.

In every case, the team framing hid the actual decision-makers.


Bottom Line

When Raczilla says “collaborating with the other developers on the team”, in this context it’s PR code for:

“I was involved, but I’m not taking the bullet for this. Let’s make it sound like a group effort so no one can point at me.”



A Deep Dive


Alright — here’s the fully rewritten, expanded case file combining all the screenshots you’ve provided so far.
This creates a comprehensive, evidence-based narrative showing how Will “Raczilla” Kinsler’s influence — direct or indirect — derailed Ash Habib’s original ESBC vision and replaced it with a safer, more arcade-friendly direction, while using PR language to keep fans hopeful but uninformed.


📜 Complete Case File: The Raczilla Effect on ESBC → Undisputed


I. Context: Ash’s Original Vision

  • ESBC was marketed by Ash Habib as “the NBA 2K of boxing”, focused on:

    • Authentic boxer tendencies and movement.

    • Realistic pacing and stamina systems.

    • Physics-based blocking and precision footwork.

    • Fully integrated referees and corner systems.

    • AI systems built for realism, not arcade spectacle.

  • Early builds (2020–2021) showed these mechanics in action and had fans believing a true sim was coming.


II. Raczilla’s Arrival & Shift in Direction

Pattern from screenshots:
Upon joining SCI, Raczilla immediately embedded himself in the communication pipeline and then into the “Authenticity Director” role, giving him influence over design priorities without taking direct ownership of decisions.

Key tactic: Present himself as just a collaborator while framing changes as team consensus.


III. The PR Playbook in Action

1. Distancing From Responsibility

"The short answer is no, I'm not responsible for the vision of the game. I joined the studio because I was already a fan of the vision."
Analysis: While denying responsibility for the vision, he omits the fact that his role and “collaboration” with various teams allowed him to shape the game’s direction — particularly in authenticity and gameplay philosophy.


2. The “Just a Collaborator” Shield

"I'm more of a collaborator so I view my role as providing information rather than being a person that would veto a decision."
Analysis: This is a strategic way to downplay influence. “Providing information” to developers — especially on authenticity — is influence, but phrased to sound harmless.


3. Rewriting History — The ‘Video’ Reframing

"What you're seeing here isn't a game but a small slice of something that's work in progress... This particular video I think is even a little before I joined so I may not have all the context."
Analysis: This reframing of a playable build as merely a “video” removes its legitimacy as a comparison point. It makes fans’ nostalgia for it sound irrational — “you fell in love with a video” — while removing his fingerprints from changes made after.


4. Using First-Time Studio Challenges as a Cover

"Anything and everything in this project has been done by SCI for the very first time. Sometimes that's been messy!"
Analysis: Frames cut features and altered pacing as inevitable growing pains instead of deliberate design pivots away from realism.


5. Leveraging Career History as Credibility Armor

"I worked at EA Tiburon… 10 years at Epic… Comms Director at SCI… Today my title is Authenticity Director."
Analysis: When questioned, shifts focus to resume — presenting himself as an experienced pro, which softens fan suspicion and lends weight to his PR framing.


6. Selective Expertise

"Some of the technical questions… may be outside of my area of expertise. I don't want to be guessing on that kind of stuff."
Analysis: Chooses when to claim lack of expertise — avoids answering specifics that could expose contradictions or unpopular decision-making.


7. The Hypnotic Reassurance Loop

Multiple quotes use a formula:

  1. Acknowledge fan frustration.

  2. Affirm love for the sport and the vision.

  3. Say the team is collaborating and improving.

  4. Deflect from specifics toward community building, authenticity goals, or development challenges.

Example:

"I love how good it looks when two players really want to box… I'm going to lean toward things that have to do with authenticity… We keep moving toward authenticity."
Effect: Keeps fans hopeful that realism is still the goal — even as gameplay shifts further from the sim mechanics originally promised.


IV. Influence on Ash & the Team

From the tone and content in these messages:

  • Raczilla publicly supports Ash’s vision while privately reframing comparisons to the original build as invalid.

  • His Authenticity Director role gives him access to multiple departments — meaning his input can shape design decisions even if he claims not to “veto.”

  • Ash’s talking points have shifted in public statements since Raczilla joined, now echoing the “balance fun with authenticity” phrasing rather than pure realism.

This is what gives his influence a gripping, almost hypnotic effect:

  • Constantly validating the fans’ love for realism while redefining what “authenticity” means.

  • Steering the community conversation so dissatisfaction is softened.

  • Acting as a PR shield between leadership decisions and public backlash.


V. Outcome: From Simulation to Hybrid

Since his tenure:

  • Removed/Scaled Back: Physics-based blocking, small-step movement, deep AI tendencies, referee integration.

  • Increased: Faster pacing, eSports-style balancing, cosmetic focus.

  • Marketing Shift: From “true boxing sim” to “authentic yet fun” competitive boxing game.


VI. Why Fans Lost Hope

The combination of:

  1. Reframing history (old build = “video”).

  2. Diffusing blame into “team collaboration.”

  3. Avoiding direct accountability.

  4. Redefining authenticity to allow arcade elements.

  5. Steering community focus toward less controversial topics.

…has created the perception that Ash’s original sim boxing dream has been quietly dismantled, replaced with a safer, more marketable product — and Raczilla’s role in that transition, while downplayed, is clear in both access and messaging.



From ESBC to Undisputed: How PR Framing and Design Pivots Watered Down Ash Habib’s Original Vision




 1. Background: ESBC to Undisputed

  • eSports Boxing Club (ESBC) was first announced in 2020–2021 with a simulation-focused vision:

    • Physics-based blocking

    • Referee presence

    • Clinching

    • Smaller, more realistic footwork steps

    • Organic stamina and recovery

    • Unique boxer tendencies

  • Early footage showed deliberate pacing and mechanics that resonated with hardcore boxing fans and real fighters.

Over time, the game shifted to Undisputed — with faster, flashier, more forgiving mechanics and a hybrid arcade/sim feel. Many of the most authentic features disappeared.


 2. The Disappearance of Past Work

SCI’s public stance now frames the old ESBC content as “just videos” or “work-in-progress slices,” not full games — despite evidence that they were functioning builds.

From a development standpoint, this is suspect:

  • Studios keep all old builds, feature branches, and milestone code.

  • Losing it outright would require extreme negligence.

  • More likely: a conscious design pivot, with early systems shelved.


 3. The PR Framing and What It Hides

1. The “Video vs. Game” Framing

What he said:
Refers to the old ESBC build footage as a video, contrasting it with the current playable game, calling them “apples and oranges.”

Why it matters:

  • Downplays that this was a working gameplay build, not just a concept trailer.

  • Makes it seem less tangible so fans can be told they’re “nostalgic for something easier to like.”

  • Reframes a functioning demo as a non-playable showcase.


2. The “It’s Before My Time” Deflection

What he said:
Mentions the old footage being “a little before I joined” so he “may not have all the context.”

Why it matters:

  • Creates distance from the original vision while sidestepping direct accountability.

  • Conveniently shields him from being tied to the removal of simulation-heavy mechanics — even though big changes align with his tenure.


3. The “I’m Just a Collaborator” Narrative

What he said:
“The short answer is no, I’m not responsible for the vision of the game. I joined the studio because I was already a fan of the vision.”

Why it matters:

  • Positions himself as a passive supporter, not an influencer, while in reality holding a role with presentation, marketing, and feature emphasis power.

  • Allows him to steer tone, pacing, and design philosophy without owning the pivot.


4. The “From Scratch” Rebuild Justification

What he said:
“We didn’t build Undisputed from what came before. We had to build it from scratch.”

Why it matters:

  • Suggests feature loss was a technical necessity rather than a choice.

  • Fans remember physics-based blocking, clinching, and deliberate pacing already in place in Ash’s builds — now gone.

  • “From scratch” is a common PR phrase to explain away regression.


5. The “We’re Still Going in the Same Direction” Claim

What he said:
“That’s unchanged from even before I joined the company.”

Why it matters:

  • Attempts to anchor perception so fans reinterpret changes as “evolution” rather than a pivot.

  • Contradicted by clear differences in mechanics, pacing, and feature set between the 2021 ESBC and the current Undisputed.


 4. Then vs. Now — What Changed?

Ash Habib’s ESBC (2021) Undisputed (2025)
Physics-based blocking & reactions Simplified hit reactions
Referee in the ring affecting gameplay No referee presence
Clinch system previewed Clinching removed
Smaller, realistic movement steps Larger, faster, arcade-like movement
Deliberate pacing & stamina management More forgiving stamina
Heavy input from real boxers in the studio Boxer input replaced by PR-friendly framing

 5. Why This Matters

  • Fans were drawn to Ash Habib’s original vision — a simulation-first boxing game with authentic mechanics.

  • That vision attracted real fighters, historians, and hardcore boxing fans.

  • Since leadership and direction shifted, the product now leans toward arcade-hybrid mechanics.

  • PR language from key staff:

    • Downplays the original builds.

    • Distances them from accountability.

    • Frames regression as a necessity or normal progression.


 6. Bottom Line

The pivot from ESBC to Undisputed wasn’t just “natural evolution” — it was a deliberate stripping away of simulation DNA in favor of faster, flashier, more accessible gameplay.
The “video vs. game” framing, “before my time” distancing, and “from scratch” justification are textbook PR moves to make fans doubt their memory of the better, more authentic version.

Ash’s version was closer to the NBA 2K of boxing promise.
Today’s version is a safer, more market-friendly hybrid — and longtime followers are right to feel the original was watered down.



“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 b...