(1).png)
How SCI Silences Passionate Boxing Fans
The original ESBC Alpha video wasn’t just a flashy teaser — it showcased actual in-game models (7:05). Even though the footage clearly stated that the game was still in alpha stages (0:10–0:13) and that the models, environments, and other elements were subject to further development and refinement (6:57–7:18), it offered something powerful: a vision of realism. For many fans, that video represented the truest promise of a simulation-first boxing experience.
But as development shifted, so did the messaging. Instead of honoring that vision, Steel City Interactive (SCI) has increasingly used a narrative of deflection — dismissing critiques, reframing expectations, and silencing the very voices who championed realism from the start.
The Alpha That Was Lost
When ESBC released its Official Alpha Gameplay Features (First Look), the presentation was clear: these were “actual game models” and features being built into the foundation of the game. It wasn’t smoke and mirrors — it was a transparent peek into what players could expect.
Key features showcased in the Alpha included:
-
Referees in the ring enforcing rules and breaking up clinches.
-
Clinch mechanics where fighters could tie up strategically.
-
Stamina and fatigue systems visibly draining as punches missed or landed.
-
Inside fighting options for close-range realism.
-
Distinct movement styles between boxers — flat-footed brawlers vs elusive movers.
-
Visible damage modeling, with swelling, cuts, and fatigue showing on boxer faces.
-
Tendency and trait systems hinted at, suggesting adaptive AI behavior.
For hardcore fans, this wasn’t just marketing — it was proof that SCI was serious about realism.
But by 2025, many of these features have been delayed, downplayed, or outright removed from the discussion. The referee is gone. Clinching is sidelined. Stamina has been watered down. Boxer styles feel homogenized. Damage is muted. And AI depth remains shallow.
This is why fans hold the Alpha in such high regard: it is the clearest representation of the game they were promised, versus the version they were handed.
Ash Habib’s Comments: The “Smart Group” Dismissal
In an interview, Ash Habib made a comment that struck at the core of long-time fans’ concerns. Around the 1:18–1:21 mark, he refers to “a certain side of a small group of people that think they’re so smart.”
Who is he talking about? The implication, intentional or not, points directly to community leaders like Poe and DeBeas, fans who not only pushed for realism but also spent years networking with EA and 2K developers, trying to bridge the gap between fans and studios. These weren’t casual critics — they were the exact type of knowledgeable voices SCI should have embraced.
Instead, the statement reduced their contributions to arrogance, framing them as a nuisance rather than advocates.
Ash’s Logic: Playing “The Way It’s Supposed to Be”
Ash himself has said that “playing the game the way it’s supposed to be” was his expectation. That statement reveals the heart of the issue.
-
The mechanics should make gameplay realistic by design, not through hand-holding or artificial limitations.
-
A boxing game should allow for a strategic chess match or an explosive knockout depending on the boxer, tendencies, and decisions made.
-
Yet instead of building mechanics that naturally create this variety, SCI often leans on the excuse of “balance.”
During the same interview, Ash added several important points:
-
Casual and Hardcore Modes: He admitted that these modes were part of the early designs (11:32–11:34) but never made it into early access.
-
Balance Challenges: He spoke about the difficulty of finding a balance that satisfies the entire community (11:51–11:56), referencing EA and 2K’s decades-long struggle with this issue (12:00–12:21).
-
Personal Preference: He stated that he prefers hardcore games with no hand-holding (12:26–12:37), but quickly pivoted to say the game has to appeal to more than just a small group (12:53–12:58).
The repeated use of the word “balance” feels less like problem-solving and more like programming the community into acceptance. Hardcore fans hear it as a code word for watering down realism.
Enter Will “Raczilla” Kinsler: The Gatekeeper
Shortly after, community manager Will Kinsler (aka Raczilla) weighed in on Discord with a long post. His key points were:
-
What fans were seeing was just a work-in-progress (WIP) video.
-
Comparing an alpha video to the modern game was “apples and oranges.”
-
It’s “easy to fall in love with a video” but harder to evaluate a game fairly.
But here’s the issue: the ESBC Alpha video wasn’t just a concept trailer. The developers themselves described it as showcasing in-game models and real mechanics. As they said in the video: “These are actual game models.” That fact undermines the idea that the Alpha was only a rough placeholder.
By dismissing the Alpha’s importance, Kinsler effectively downplayed the Official Alpha Gameplay Features (First Look) — the most transparent, ambitious representation of the game fans were promised.
The Deflection Strategy
Whenever fans press for realism, a familiar set of responses emerge from SCI leadership:
-
“It’s just a work in progress.”
A way to dismiss valid critiques of missing features. -
“That was before I joined.”
A tactic to distance today’s leadership from yesterday’s promises. -
“It’s unfair to compare video and game.”
Reframing fan expectations as unrealistic instead of addressing the missing realism. -
“Balance.”
A hypnotic buzzword that suggests compromise but really means watering down realism to fit one model.
This isn’t engagement — it’s a strategy to deflect, stall, and delegitimize fan concerns.
Why Fans Are Suspicious
The timing is hard to ignore. Ash dismisses a “smart group” of critics. Raczilla positions himself as the explainer, shifting blame onto fans for holding onto an old video.
Defenders often argue:
-
“Will doesn’t have as much power as you think.”
-
“He wants a realistic boxing game too.”
But his own posts repeatedly defend the move away from realism. His Discord statement makes it clear that the Alpha — the most realistic vision SCI ever showed — is something to move past, not something to restore.
The Bigger Picture
Hardcore fans are not asking for the impossible. They’re asking for:
-
Referees and clinching to add depth.
-
Stamina and fatigue systems that matter.
-
Realistic movement that respects boxer styles.
-
AI tendencies and traits that reflect boxing strategy.
These are the features that ESBC’s Alpha promised — and that SCI has since downplayed, delayed, or outright removed.
Instead, the narrative pushed onto the community is that fans are being unreasonable, nitpicking, or stuck in the past. It’s a subtle but powerful form of shutting down dissent.
Conclusion: Passion Shouldn’t Be Punished
Boxing games live and die by their authenticity. Casual players may move on, but hardcore fans — the ones who have followed this journey since ESBC’s early days — remain invested because they care deeply about the sport.
Yet SCI’s handling of criticism has been to deflect, dismiss, and discredit. Ash Habib’s words reduce committed fans to a “small group that thinks they’re smart.” Raczilla’s posts reframe the Alpha as a distraction. And the constant mantra of “balance” has become a shield for design decisions that sideline realism.
Fans deserve better. They deserve honesty, respect, and a game that lives up to the vision that brought them here in the first place.
.png){kind=logo}
