Saturday, September 20, 2025

"The Myth of Impossibility: How SCI Misleads Fans About Roster Updates"

1. The False Narrative

Steel City Interactive (SCI) and their spokespeople have pushed the idea that making individual changes to one boxer risks “messing up” the entire roster. They claim that because animations, stats, and systems are interconnected, developers must manually adjust every boxer if a single element is altered. This narrative is often presented as a reason why core features, authenticity updates, or requested fixes can’t be implemented.

The problem? It’s not an industry truth—it’s an excuse. Many sports games with far larger rosters have managed individualized updates for years.

2. Proven Counterexamples

NBA 2K
Hundreds of players, each with unique ratings, tendencies, sig shots, animations, and body types. Developers adjust individual players weekly during the season with roster updates—without “breaking” the entire game.
Madden NFL & FIFA/EA FC
Thousands of athletes across multiple leagues. Developers patch ratings, tendencies, and even animations at the player level through live updates, while maintaining overall system stability.
MLB The Show
Every player has distinct batting stances, swing mechanics, and tendencies. Updates are made constantly to reflect real-world performance.

These titles prove that individualized adjustments are not only possible—they are standard practice in sports video games.

3. Why SCI’s Claim Rings Hollow

Modern Engines Support Modular Design
Unity, Unreal, or proprietary engines allow modular stat systems, where attributes, animations, and tendencies are data-driven and scriptable. This avoids “one edit breaks all” scenarios.
Data Layer vs Animation Layer Separation
- Ratings, traits, and tendencies should exist in editable data tables.
- Animations can be referenced by ID and linked per-boxer, not globally.
- This modularity means changing one boxer’s jab speed or stamina curve shouldn’t ripple across the entire roster.
Roster Scale
SCI has under 300 licensed boxers. Compare that to NBA 2K’s 500+ active players, 150+ legends, and hundreds of MyTeam cards—all updated without collapse.

4. Why Spread This Narrative?

Deflection: It shifts blame from poor development pipelines to the “complexity” of the task.
Control: It convinces content creators and casual fans that hardcore requests are unreasonable.
Expectation Management: It lowers the community’s expectations for realism and authenticity.

5. The Truth

The “impossible” line is intentional misinformation. Editing boxers individually is not only possible—it’s essential for a simulation boxing game. NBA 2K, Madden, FIFA, and MLB The Show have already demonstrated that the infrastructure for individualized updates is achievable and scalable.

If SCI’s systems are so fragile that one change truly risks breaking the whole roster, then the issue isn’t the task—it’s the way the game was built.

Bottom line: Other sports games do this every single year. The claim that it’s “impossible” is not grounded in technical reality, but rather in poor design choices and a willingness to deceive or mislead the fanbase.

Lessons from 2K, Madden, and MLB The Show: Why Boxing Videogames Fail Without Representation

Two Different Roads

In sports gaming, two paths are clear. On one side, games like NBA 2K, Madden NFL, and MLB The Show have built entire ecosystems of authenticity and representation. On the other, boxing videogames continue to struggle—caught in the tug-of-war between realism and arcade, between casual hype and long-term depth. The key difference? Representation.

1. How NBA 2K Built a Blueprint of Representation

NBA 2K is more than a videogame—it’s a cultural hub for basketball. Its success didn’t come from marketing gimmicks; it came from embedding authenticity at every level:

Tendencies and ratings: Every player, even benchwarmers, has unique tendencies. This makes LeBron, Curry, or Jokic feel different from one another.
Era modes and MyNBA: Fans can experience basketball across generations with accurate rules, presentation, and player likenesses.
Brand integration: Real shoes, gear, arenas, and broadcast crews give the game a lived-in authenticity.
Community respect: 2K understood that basketball players and fans are customers too. They leaned into representing the sport for those who live it, not just watch it casually.

2. Madden NFL and the Power of Rules & Structure

Madden may have its share of critics, but it never abandoned football’s rules and structures:

Penalties, referees, formations, and playbooks mirror the real sport.
Ratings are broken down into dozens of categories, allowing linemen, quarterbacks, and wide receivers to all feel different.
NFL branding is used authentically, with real play-calling terminology and commentary that feels at home in Sunday broadcasts.

Even when fans critique Madden, the criticism is never about “does this represent football?”—because that baseline is already built in.

3. MLB The Show: Depth and Loyalty Through Authenticity

Baseball’s most successful videogame shows how authenticity can be commercial gold:

Pitcher vs. batter tendencies drive every at-bat, not just overall numbers.
Franchise modes and scouting systems mirror the grind of the sport.
Realistic stadiums, commentary, and league structures keep the immersion unbroken.
The game doesn’t water down baseball to chase casuals—it leans into realism and earns loyalty.

The Show proves that even “niche” sports can thrive with authentic representation.

4. Boxing’s Struggle: The Casual Investor’s Roadblock

In boxing videogames, CEOs, publishers, and investors often:

Strip away referee systems and clinching for “simplicity.”
Use tier systems instead of robust ratings.
Market through content creators while ignoring hardcore fans.
Treat partnerships with BoxRec or CompuBox as logos, not gameplay systems.

This isn’t how 2K, Madden, or The Show operate. Those franchises embrace representation, and it’s why they dominate year after year. Boxing games are failing not because the sport is “niche,” but because leadership chooses the shallow casual route.

5. The Missing Piece: Let Knowledge Lead the Ship

Sometimes, you have to let people with deeper knowledge of the sport control the ship. Guessing, recycling outdated tactics, or using long-gone strategies from past eras no longer works in the modern gaming industry. Gamers have matured. Many who grew up on Fight Night, Knockout Kings, or even earlier titles are now wiser, more experienced, and demand authenticity.

What might have been acceptable in 2004 no longer flies in 2025. The community is sharper, the internet is faster, and players can see through PR spin. Authenticity is the only sustainable path forward.

6. The Blueprint for Boxing to Succeed

If a boxing game wants to match NBA 2K’s success, it must:

Build tendency and rating systems that differentiate every boxer.
Integrate era modes, gyms, amateur circuits, and governing bodies to reflect the sport’s structure.
Use branding (CompuBox, BoxRec, sanctioning bodies) in authentic, gameplay-driven ways.
Hire boxing experts to lead development—not just casual business voices.
Respect the fact that today’s fans are smarter, better informed, and harder to fool than ever before.

Conclusion: Authenticity Is the Winning Formula

NBA 2K, Madden, and MLB The Show prove that authentic representation builds loyalty, cultural relevance, and profit. Boxing videogames, under casual leadership, continue to choose the opposite: quick hype, stripped-down mechanics, and shallow authenticity. That path leads to short-term sales but long-term failure.

For boxing to finally get its true flagship videogame, it must follow the proven blueprint: respect the sport, represent its depth, and let people with real knowledge steer the vision. Only then will boxing gaming move beyond the mistakes of the past and into the modern era where authenticity is king.

When Casual CEOs, Publishers, and Investors Control Boxing Videogames

Introduction: The Casual Fan Lens

One of the most overlooked issues in the development of boxing videogames is who actually holds the power. Too often, the decision-makers—the CEOs, publishers, and investors—are not lifelong boxing people. They are casual fans at best, business opportunists at worst. This distinction matters. Their shallow relationship with the sport directly shapes the direction of games, stripping away authenticity in favor of marketability.

1. Casual Fans in Executive Seats

Casual fans see boxing as:

Knockouts and highlight reels.
Big names like Tyson, Ali, and Canelo.
Ring walks, belts, and spectacle.

What they don’t see is the grind of amateur boxing, the subtle rhythm of footwork, the technical chess match inside the ropes, or the importance of a referee’s presence in shaping a fight. Without that deeper understanding, their creative decisions often lead to:

Tier systems instead of nuanced rating systems.
Universal movement mechanics (everyone dancing like Ali) instead of distinct boxer styles.
Arcade-style shortcuts that ignore tendencies, stamina, or fatigue dynamics.

2. The Profit-Over-Authenticity Approach

When investors and publishers approach boxing, their priority is usually:

Fast returns – stripping down systems to push an early release.
Wide appeal – building for casual players who will buy on hype.
Safe marketing – leaning on content creators to repeat PR messages, instead of highlighting authentic boxing voices.

This is why companies partner with brands like CompuBox or BoxRec but fail to use them properly. They want the logos, not the systems. They want the look of authenticity, not the responsibility of building it into the gameplay.

3. The Cost of Ignoring Representation

Alienating Core Fans

Hardcore fans, lifelong boxers, trainers, and historians are the heartbeat of the sport. When a game fails to reflect reality, these fans feel disrespected. They are silenced in favor of casuals who may not even stick around.

Boxers Are Customers Too

Amateur and pro boxers represent hundreds of thousands of potential customers worldwide. A realistic game could draw them in, much like NBA 2K became a standard in basketball culture. But when executives ignore representation, they close the door on this massive, loyal audience.

Short-Term Casual Base

Casual players tend to move on quickly after hype fades. If the game isn’t built with authentic systems and depth, there’s no foundation for long-term replayability or sequels. That leaves the sport misrepresented and the fanbase fractured.

4. Why Representation Matters in Boxing Games

Representation in a boxing game doesn’t just mean putting a famous name on a character model. It means:

Accurate ratings that separate boxers beyond just overall numbers.
Tendency systems that let AI move and fight like real boxers.
Referees and clinching systems to mirror real rules.
Amateur circuits and gyms to show the grassroots path every boxer takes.
Commentary, branding, and arenas that feel true to the sport.

Without these, the game becomes a hollow arcade shell. With them, it becomes a living, breathing representation of boxing.

5. The Solution: Put Boxing People in the Room

To counteract the casual lens, developers must:

Hire ex-boxers, trainers, and historians as consultants.
Build dedicated roles for ratings, tendencies, and authenticity oversight.
Allow hardcore boxing fans to beta-test and provide feedback that goes beyond “fun factor.”
Respect boxers not just as characters in the game, but as part of the customer base.

This is how NBA 2K became a cultural touchstone for basketball. They leaned into representation, player tendencies, branding authenticity, and community involvement. Boxing deserves the same.

Conclusion: Authenticity Is Long-Term Currency

When CEOs, publishers, and investors treat boxing as a quick product for casuals, they harm the sport and its fanbase. Casuals may provide the hype, but authenticity provides the staying power. Without true representation, a boxing game fades into irrelevance, just another arcade experiment. With authenticity, it can capture the spirit of the sport and finally give boxing the videogame it deserves.

✅ This kind of deep dive makes the issue clear: the problem isn’t just the developers—it’s the casual leadership culture steering decisions away from realism.

Perfect — here’s the follow-up deep dive companion piece, this time comparing boxing’s situation to NBA 2K, Madden, and MLB The Show:

Lessons from 2K, Madden, and MLB The Show: Why Boxing Videogames Fail Without Representation

Introduction: Two Different Roads

1. How NBA 2K Built a Blueprint of Representation

NBA 2K is more than a videogame—it’s a cultural hub for basketball. Its success didn’t come from marketing gimmicks; it came from embedding authenticity at every level:

Tendencies and ratings: Every player, even benchwarmers, has unique tendencies. This makes LeBron, Curry, or Jokic feel different from one another.
Era modes and MyNBA: Fans can experience basketball across generations with accurate rules, presentation, and player likenesses.
Brand integration: Real shoes, gear, arenas, and broadcast crews give the game a lived-in authenticity.
Community respect: 2K understood that basketball players and fans are customers too. They leaned into representing the sport for those who live it, not just watch it casually.

2. Madden NFL and the Power of Rules & Structure

Madden may have its share of critics, but it never abandoned football’s rules and structures:

Penalties, referees, formations, and playbooks mirror the real sport.
Ratings are broken down into dozens of categories, allowing linemen, quarterbacks, and wide receivers to all feel different.
NFL branding is used authentically, with real play-calling terminology and commentary that feels at home in Sunday broadcasts.

Even when fans critique Madden, the criticism is never about “does this represent football?”—because that baseline is already built in.

3. MLB The Show: Depth and Loyalty Through Authenticity

Baseball’s most successful videogame shows how authenticity can be commercial gold:

Pitcher vs. batter tendencies drive every at-bat, not just overall numbers.
Franchise modes and scouting systems mirror the grind of the sport.
Realistic stadiums, commentary, and league structures keep the immersion unbroken.
The game doesn’t water down baseball to chase casuals—it leans into realism and earns loyalty.

The Show proves that even “niche” sports can thrive with authentic representation.

4. Boxing’s Struggle: The Casual Investor’s Roadblock

In boxing videogames, CEOs, publishers, and investors often:

Strip away referee systems and clinching for “simplicity.”
Use tier systems instead of robust ratings.
Market through content creators while ignoring hardcore fans.
Treat partnerships with BoxRec or CompuBox as logos, not gameplay systems.

5. The Blueprint for Boxing to Succeed

If a boxing game wants to match NBA 2K’s success, it must:

Build tendency and rating systems that differentiate every boxer.
Integrate era modes, gyms, amateur circuits, and governing bodies to reflect the sport’s structure.
Use branding (CompuBox, BoxRec, sanctioning bodies) in authentic, gameplay-driven ways.
Hire boxing experts to lead development—not just casual business voices.

Representation is not optional. It is the foundation for immersion, longevity, and respect.

Conclusion: Authenticity Is the Winning Formula

For boxing to finally get its true flagship videogame, it must follow the proven blueprint: respect the sport, represent its depth, and build for the fans who live boxing—not just those who watch highlights.

✅ This companion piece puts boxing’s struggle in direct contrast with other sports games.

Why Removing Boxer Ratings from Undisputed is the Most Arcadey Move SCI Could Make

1. The Purpose of Ratings in Sports Games

Differentiation: Ratings give each boxer their identity. Ali isn’t Tyson. Marciano isn’t Fury. Without a numerical/stat-based system, you erase what makes each boxer unique.
Educational Value: For casuals who don’t know every boxer, ratings explain at a glance—“This guy has insane chin durability but low speed” or “That guy has average power but elite stamina.”
Strategic Layer: Ratings force players to adapt. If you pick a low-stamina slugger, you can’t fight like you’re Sugar Ray Leonard. This is simulation depth, not arcade sameness.
Sports Standard: Every serious sports sim—NBA 2K, FIFA, Madden, MLB The Show—relies on ratings. It’s the language of sports gaming. Removing it breaks immersion and signals that the devs don’t want simulation.

2. Why Removing Ratings is an “Arcade Tell”

Tier Systems = Fighting Games, Not Sports Sims
A “Tier A, B, C” approach belongs in Street Fighter or Tekken. It’s shorthand for “balance over realism.” Boxing isn’t about balance—it’s about style clashes, matchups, and overcoming advantages/disadvantages.
Boxers Become Skins
If there’s no ratings system, you’re basically just choosing different skins with the same hidden mechanics. That’s not Ali vs Foreman—it’s cosmetic DLC.
False Equality
Flat-footed sluggers suddenly move like slick movers. Lightweights hit as hard as heavyweights. The nuance disappears. That’s arcade game design, not boxing authenticity.

3. The Disconnect From Boxing Reality

Boxing is Built on Inequalities
Boxing thrives on the fact that no two boxers are equal. That’s why “styles make fights.” Marciano couldn’t move like Ali, but his chin and stamina defined his greatness. Without ratings, you erase those distinctions.
Immersion Requires Stats
Fans want to see if a boxer’s “85 Chin” holds up against a “93 Power.” It’s part of the drama, part of the immersion, and part of why boxing sims matter.
Casuals Move On, Hardcores Stay
Removing ratings to cater to casuals is short-sighted. Casuals may play for a few weeks, then drop it. Hardcores—especially boxing fans—are the ones who stick with the game long-term. Take ratings away, you alienate the core.

4. What SCI and Content Creators Miss

Saying “ratings don’t serve a purpose” is a cop-out. The real issue isn’t the existence of ratings—it’s the poor execution of ratings:
- Overly compressed numbers (too many 85–88 boxers).
- Lack of meaningful differences between attributes.
- Missing supporting systems (tendencies, traits, footwork packages).
Instead of fixing ratings, SCI seems ready to abandon them. That’s lazy design and a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes sports sims thrive.

5. The Right Way Forward

Keep Ratings but make them meaningful:
- Add tendencies (how often a boxer jabs, clinches, throws to the body).
- Add traits (Marquez gets sharper when hurt, Ali taunts, Tyson explosive early).
- Add styles (unique movement, stance, animations).
Ratings + tendencies + traits = authenticity and replay value.
SCI should hire sports data analysts and boxing historians to refine these numbers instead of listening to devs or content creators who think ratings are “pointless.”

✅ Bottom Line: Removing boxer ratings doesn’t just make Undisputed arcade—it makes it soulless. Ratings are the DNA of a boxing game. Without them, Ali isn’t Ali, Tyson isn’t Tyson, and every boxer is just a reskinned avatar.

Friday, September 19, 2025

The Disguised Arcade Push: How Undisputed and Undisputed 2 Are Abandoning Hardcore Boxing Fans Under the Guise of Realism

The Disguised Push Toward Arcade Boxing: Why Hardcore Fans Are Being Left Behind

Introduction: The Illusion of Realism

Steel City Interactive (SCI) launched Undisputed under the banner of authenticity. The early trailers, partnerships with CompuBox and BoxRec, and licensing with legendary boxers painted a picture of a true simulation—the long-awaited successor to Fight Night. Yet beneath the surface, the design choices and future roadmap reveal something very different: an arcade-leaning experience dressed up in realism’s clothing.

This bait-and-switch approach not only alienates hardcore boxing fans but also threatens the long-term credibility of the franchise.

The Guise of Realism

The “realism” pitch is everywhere in Undisputed’s branding. It’s in the scanned boxer models, the sanctioned belts, the commentary about respecting the sport. But realism is more than names and logos—it’s about gameplay mechanics that reflect the sweet science.

Where the game begins to unravel is in the systems that matter most to authenticity:

Movement Mechanics: Every boxer can dance around the ring like Ali, even flat-footed pressure fighters like Marciano.
Damage & Fatigue: Cuts, swelling, and stamina are cosmetic or temporary, not layered systems that alter strategy.
AI & Tendencies: Boxers don’t fight to their historical tendencies; instead, everyone feels built for online balance.

This is not realism. It’s a simulation skin stretched over an arcade skeleton.

The Push Toward Arcade Foundations

While SCI insists the game is about balance, the actual roadmap leans heavily toward arcade structures.

1. Ratings vs. Tiers

Traditional sports sims use ratings to differentiate players and boxers. SCI is experimenting with replacing ratings with tiers (A-tier, B-tier, etc.). This is an arcade staple, not a simulation one. Ratings reflect reality—Ali and Foreman can both be “94 overall” yet feel different because their sub-ratings and tendencies differ. Tiers flatten that uniqueness into simple “best vs. mid vs. weak.”

2. Online First, Offline Last

SCI prioritizes online competition over deep offline immersion. Hardcore fans who grew up with Fight Night’s Legacy Mode or dreamed of something akin to NBA 2K’s MyLeague are sidelined in favor of short-term online engagement.

3. Simplified Systems

Clinching and referee intervention stripped out.
Stamina regeneration sped up to keep fights flashy.
Damage visuals tweaked for spectacle, not realism.

This isn’t a boxing sim—it’s an arcade product dressed in simulation clothes.

Marginalizing Hardcore Fans

The most dangerous narrative being pushed is that hardcore boxing fans don’t matter. SCI leadership has publicly suggested that only a “small group” of fans care about realism, while the majority are casual players who just want fun.

This dismissive stance has three major problems:

It ignores history: From Knockout Kings to Fight Night, boxing games sold on realism, not gimmicks. Fans wanted authenticity because it gave boxing credibility as a sport in the digital space.
It alienates the loyalists: Hardcore fans are the ones who evangelize, create content, and keep a franchise alive between releases.
It misunderstands casual players: Casuals may enjoy an arcade twist, but they move on quickly. Hardcore fans are the ones who provide longevity.

By framing realism advocates as “5% of the community,” SCI is downplaying the very foundation of boxing’s gaming audience.

Why This Strategy is Dangerous

Shifting toward arcade under the guise of realism is short-sighted. It may yield a brief spike in casual player numbers, but it undermines the long-term health of the franchise.

Credibility Collapse: Hardcore fans will call out the false advertising, damaging SCI’s reputation.
Short Shelf Life: Without depth, casual players will drop the game once novelty fades.
Missed Legacy Opportunity: The first studio to truly nail a simulation boxing game could dominate the space for decades—just as NBA 2K overtook NBA Live by leaning into realism.

SCI is walking away from that opportunity in pursuit of quick returns.

The Blueprint They’re Ignoring

History offers a clear blueprint for success:

NBA 2K thrived by giving hardcore basketball fans a sim foundation while layering in optional casual modes.
MLB The Show captured authenticity by respecting player tendencies, injuries, and fatigue.
Even EA’s Fight Night Round 4 and Champion—while imperfect—proved that fans gravitate toward deeper, more realistic mechanics.

The lesson is simple: build the foundation as a sim, then offer arcade options. Not the other way around.

Conclusion: The Cost of Disguise

The push to make Undisputed and its potential sequel arcade games, under the guise of realism, is not an accident—it’s a deliberate business strategy. The studio wants to attract casuals with authentic branding while retaining them with shallow, accessible mechanics.

But in doing so, they’re dismissing the very fans who could make the game immortal. Hardcore boxing fans—the historians, the strategists, the purists—are not a minority to be ignored. They are the backbone of boxing as a sport and as a culture. Without them, Undisputed risks becoming just another forgotten experiment.

The future of boxing games depends on authenticity. If SCI won’t deliver it, someone else will.

SCI’s “Bad Choices”, What They Really Mean

SCI’s “Bad Choices” – What They Really Mean

1. Development Direction Missteps

When Steel City Interactive (SCI) admit they’ve made “bad choices,” part of that refers to the technical and management side:

Overpromising early: Their ESBC trailers promised referees, clinching, true damage modeling, realistic AI tendencies, and partnerships with CompuBox/BoxRec used authentically.
Under-delivering: Five years later, many of those systems are still missing or stripped out. Fans see this as wasted time and mismanagement.
Engine issues as excuses: SCI often blames Unity and “bad coding practices” for instability and desync. But critics argue that’s scapegoating the engine rather than acknowledging poor design pipelines.
[YouTube video by KingJuice] Ash Habib, the owner of Undisputed, admitted that the developers "messed up" (0:27) in the early days by focusing too much on realistic gameplay without considering how players might "cheese the game" or exploit mechanics. This led to issues that need to be rebalanced (8:08-8:32).

2. Design Philosophy Shifts

A bigger part of “bad choices” is the pivot in how the game plays:

Arcade vs. Sim tug-of-war: To appeal to casual players, SCI gave all boxers universal loose footwork, considered removing ratings in favor of a tier system, and emphasized “balance” over authenticity. Hardcore fans view this as betraying the original sim vision.
Neglecting offline play: Instead of building robust offline modes, SCI leaned on online events and creator leagues. Offline fans—who are often the most dedicated—felt alienated.
Casual satisfaction over boxing reality: They argue that Rocky Marciano “dancing like Ali” is necessary for gameplay balance, even if it breaks realism. This undermines immersion for real boxing fans.

3. Community & PR Handling

“Bad choices” also applies to how SCI communicated with their community:

Mixed and defensive messaging: Statements like “each fighter must be manually adjusted if we add an animation” came off as excuses, not explanations.
Dismissive tone toward sim fans: Ash Habib referred to “a small group” of hardcore fans and claimed they “can’t develop out of fear” of them. This minimizes the core audience who carried ESBC’s hype early on.
Over-reliance on content creators: SCI leaned on influencers to deliver talking points and deflect criticism, which backfired as fans noticed the spin.

4. The Real Subtext: Walking Back the Sim Promise

The deeper layer is that SCI may be saying “bad choices” because:

They originally branded the game as a sim: Early marketing leaned on the words “realistic” and “authentic.” That attracted hardcore boxing fans.
Now they’re backtracking: With systems stripped, and more arcade design creeping in, admitting “we made bad choices” is safer PR than saying “we misled you.”
Business pressures matter: Investors and publishers often fear the word “simulation,” seeing it as niche. By reframing their vision, SCI can make the product more marketable to casual players—even if it alienates boxing purists.

5. Fans’ Perspective

Hardcore fans feel bait-and-switched: they bought in because of the sim promises.
Casual players may move on after the hype, but boxing purists will be stuck with a product that never delivered the authenticity they asked for.
“Bad choices” becomes less about coding errors and more about a philosophical betrayal of the original mission.

Conclusion

When SCI say they’ve made “bad choices,” it’s not just about technical missteps. It’s shorthand for:

“We shouldn’t have promised a true boxing simulation, because we’ve pivoted to something else—and now fans are holding us accountable.”

Prizefighter vs. Undisputed: Time, Resources, and the Unity Excuse

1. Venom Games & Don King Presents: Prizefighter

Developer: Venom Games (UK).
Publisher: 2K Sports.
Timeline: ~2–2.5 years (2005/2006 → June 2008 release).
Outcome:
- Clunky animations, stiff controls, and gimmicky documentary-style story mode.
- Poorly received (Metacritic ~58).
- Venom Games shut down just two months later.

👉 Prizefighter was rushed, built by a small studio, and never had the resources to rival EA’s Fight Night. Its failure is often mislabeled as “2K’s failure,” when in reality 2K only published it.

2. Steel City Interactive & Undisputed

Developer: Steel City Interactive (SCI).
Engine: Unity.
Timeline: Over 5 years (2019 reveal → still Early Access in 2025).
Resources:
- Unity engine (mature, feature-rich).
- Access to mocap, brand licensing (BoxRec, CompuBox), and high-profile boxers.
- Over 1M copies sold in Early Access, plus DLC revenue.
Outcome (so far):
- Still unfinished, buggy, and unpolished.
- Missing fundamental boxing elements (referees, clinching, authentic footwork, robust ratings/tendencies).
- Hardcore community frustrated; casuals already drifting away.

👉 Unlike Venom, SCI had time, money, partnerships, and tools — yet Undisputed still doesn’t deliver a polished simulation.

3. The Unity Excuse

SCI often claims Unity is a bottleneck — for example, saying that “every new animation has to be manually adjusted for each boxer.” But this is misleading:

Unity is capable.
- Games like Escape from Tarkov, Cities: Skylines, Rust, Cuphead, Genshin Impact, Ori all run on Unity.
- Sports-style systems (attributes, tendencies, sliders) are fully possible.
It’s about workflow, not the engine.
- Unity supports databases, scriptable objects, editor tools, and animation blending systems.
- If SCI’s workflow requires manual adjustments, that’s a design flaw, not a Unity limitation.
Proven examples: Many complex sports and simulation games use Unity successfully with dynamic rosters, deep AI, and polished animation systems.

👉 Blaming Unity is scapegoating. The real issue is SCI’s lack of system-level planning, poor pipeline design, and failure to hire or empower the right Unity specialists.

4. The Ironic Parallel

Prizefighter: Short development, tiny studio, rushed product. Failure was almost inevitable.
Undisputed: Long development, modern engine, early access funding, community input. Failure is not inevitable — it’s the result of mismanagement and misplaced priorities.

In other words:

Venom Games was outgunned and ran out of time.
SCI had every advantage but still struggles to deliver.

5. The Core Takeaway

Prizefighter had an excuse — a small studio with 2–2.5 years to build a rival to Fight Night.
Undisputed has no excuse — 5+ years, Unity’s capabilities, funding, and partnerships — yet remains unfinished and unpolished.

✅ Fans need to see through the narratives: Unity isn’t the problem. Time isn’t the problem. SCI’s choices are the problem.

“From the Ring to the Console: Boxers Are Gamers and Customers Too”

Boxing Deserves Respect: Why Game Companies Must Honor Both Amateur and Professional Levels

Introduction: A Sport With Two Pillars

Boxing is unlike most sports. It thrives on two interconnected but distinct worlds: the amateur foundation and the professional stage. The amateurs represent grassroots development, Olympic dreams, and a culture of discipline and skill. The professionals represent glory, pay-per-view spectacles, and legends whose names echo through history.

For decades, boxing videogames have failed to balance these two realities. They’ve leaned on spectacle while ignoring the foundation. If developers want boxing games to survive—and thrive—they must start respecting both amateur and professional boxing. And they must understand something else: boxers themselves are customers too. If their sport isn’t represented authentically, they won’t play, they won’t support, and they won’t spread the word.

Amateur Boxing: The Scale Developers Can’t Ignore

Amateur boxing is vast, global, and deeply influential:

USA Boxing has ~22,000 registered competitors every year.
International Boxing Association (IBA) counts nearly 200 national federations.
World Boxing (WB) already has 118 federations signed on in just two years.
Every nation fields thousands of boxers across youth, university, and club levels.

All told, amateur boxing represents hundreds of thousands of athletes worldwide—millions if you include those who pass through gyms at some point. This is not a small niche. It is a global sporting ecosystem.

Professional Boxing: The Global Spotlight

Professional boxing is where names become legends: Ali, Tyson, Chavez, Mayweather, Pacquiao. It’s where sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) crown champions, where rivalries define eras, and where millions of fans pay to watch the best compete.

But every professional, no matter how famous, began in the amateurs. Ignoring the amateur foundation disconnects the pro game from its true roots.

Boxers Are Customers Too

This is the point most companies forget. Boxers—amateurs and professionals—aren’t just athletes in the ring. They’re gamers, consumers, and part of the customer base.

When a game fails to represent boxing authentically:

Amateurs feel erased. They don’t see their reality, their tournaments, or their styles reflected.
Pros feel misrepresented. A flat-footed brawler shouldn’t move like Muhammad Ali.
Both groups disengage. Why would someone who lives boxing want to play a version that disrespects it?

In short: if their sport isn’t represented authentically, boxers won’t play. And when boxers don’t support the game, it loses credibility with the fans who look up to them.

Why Respecting Both Matters

1. Authenticity Builds Trust and Longevity

Fans and athletes alike want something real. Games like NBA 2K and FIFA thrive because they mirror their sports fully. Boxing deserves the same.

2. Boxers as Ambassadors

Boxers themselves can be the game’s biggest promoters—but only if they believe in the product. An authentic game becomes a badge of honor they share with fans.

3. Broader Market Reach

Amateur base = hundreds of thousands of players worldwide.
Pro boxing fanbase = millions of paying spectators.
Ignoring either group shrinks the audience. Respecting both grows it.

4. Educational Value

Casual players can learn boxing’s strategy, scoring, and depth if the amateur system is included. This doesn’t just teach gameplay—it teaches the sport itself.

What Developers Need to Change

Include Amateur Systems
- Olympic and national tournaments.
- Amateur scoring, pacing, and protective gear.
- Career progression from amateur to pro.
Respect Professional Legacy
- Authentic sanctioning bodies, belts, and rankings.
- Diverse fighting styles (not every boxer moves the same).
- Era-based rosters and legendary rivalries.
Treat Boxers as Customers
- Gather feedback directly from athletes.
- Build systems that reflect how they train and fight.
- Let boxers see themselves represented honestly.

Conclusion: A Call to Developers

Boxing videogames are more than just entertainment—they’re cultural representations of one of the oldest and most respected sports in the world. By dismissing the amateur system, simplifying the pros, or homogenizing styles, companies risk alienating not just fans, but the boxers themselves.

And boxers are customers too. They buy games. They play games. They tell their fans whether the game is worth it. If their sport isn’t respected, they will walk away.

The choice for developers is clear: build something authentic that honors both amateur and pro boxing—or lose the trust of the very people who give boxing its life.

Why SCI’s Excuses About Animations and Code Don’t Add Up

Fans keep hearing the same line over and over from Will Kinsler and certain content creators:

“The code is poorly optimized, that’s why the game has instability.”
“If we add animations, each boxer has to be adjusted manually, or things break.”
“The engine just can’t handle what the community is asking for.”

On the surface, this sounds believable — but when you dig deeper, it feels like PR spin and an easy blame game, not the full truth. Let’s break it down.

1. The PR Pipeline

SCI doesn’t usually say these things directly to the whole community. Instead, Will talks to content creators behind closed doors, then those creators repeat the message to fans.

This makes it sound “grassroots” and authentic, even though it’s controlled messaging.
It distances SCI from accountability — if you argue, you’re arguing with a content creator, not the studio.
It turns technical problems into sympathy points instead of accountability.

This is a classic PR stunt: shift the narrative, deflect blame, and let community voices carry the message.

2. The Excuse: “Each boxer must be adjusted manually for animations”

This is where fans get frustrated. Why? Because other sports games have been solving this problem for decades.

Fight Night, NBA 2K, FIFA, Madden all share a base animation system across their entire roster.
They plug in unique animations (like Ali’s shuffle, Curry’s shot, Messi’s dribble) as overrides, not as completely new systems per player.
If you add a new jab, it slots into the base system — you don’t have to rebuild every boxer by hand.

If SCI really has to touch every boxer individually, it means their pipeline was built poorly from the start. That’s not a Unity problem — that’s a design problem.

3. The Engine Blame Game

Unity is not the issue here. Unity can absolutely handle:

Large animation graphs and blend trees.
Shared controllers with override slots.
Data-driven AI systems powered by sliders and profiles.

This is standard practice in Unity, Unreal, and other engines. Saying “the engine can’t do it” is just a cop-out. What they mean is: “the way we built it makes it harder than it should be.”

4. The Real Fix: A Tendency Slider System

Instead of excuses, SCI should be talking about solutions — and one of the most proven solutions is a tendency slider system.

Here’s how it works:

Every boxer gets a profile of sliders (0–100) that control their style and decisions.
Categories include:
- Strategy (risk-taking, ring control)
- Offense (combo depth, head/body mix, volume punching)
- Defense (blocking vs slipping, footwork-first vs guard-first)
- Engagement (clinch frequency, counter-hunting)
- Footwork (looseness, bounce, lateral bias)
- Rhythm/Timing (burstiness, trap setting, tempo)
- Adaptability (ability to change after rounds, adjust to opponents)

These sliders then drive:

AI decisions in real time.
Animation blending (footwork looseness, head movement style).
Gameplay tendencies that make each boxer unique.

Result: You don’t need to manually re-check 100 boxers. You just adjust their profile sliders. If an animation breaks, it’s caught in testing automatically — not by hand for each boxer.

5. Why Fans Shouldn’t Buy the Excuse

Saying “we can’t add animations because it breaks everything” is really saying: “we designed the system poorly.”
Saying “Unity can’t do this” is misleading — Unity is fully capable; the problem is in SCI’s workflow.
Blaming “bad code” and “engine issues” is a way to make fans think improvements are impossible when really it’s about priorities, planning, and investment.

✅ Bottom Line for Fans

Don’t let PR spin fool you.

Other sports games solved this years ago.
Unity is not the limitation — SCI’s design choices are.
A tendency slider system is the real solution for uniqueness and scalability.

So when you hear “we tried, but it causes too many issues”, understand it for what it is: a way to lower expectations and cover up poor planning.

Thursday, September 18, 2025

"Stop Blaming Ratings: How Animations, AI, and Missing Mechanics Strip Boxers of Their Uniqueness"

Ratings should mean something, how casuals can be educated, and why the real blame for lack of uniqueness belongs with animation, AI, and missing mechanics, not the numbers.

Making Ratings Mean Something — And Why Ratings Aren’t the Problem

1. The Misunderstanding Around Ratings

Casual players often assume that if two boxers share an “85 Overall,” they must be the same. Developers sometimes reinforce that view by saying ratings don’t differentiate enough. But this is misleading:

Ratings are only numbers on paper.
What makes boxers feel the same in-game isn’t the ratings—it’s animation, AI, and missing mechanics.

If every jab, hook, and cross looks and behaves the same, ratings can’t save individuality.

2. Where Uniqueness Actually Comes From

Animators

Unique punch animations, stances, defensive movements, and footwork bring personality to life.
Tyson’s compact hooks should never look like Hearns’s long right hand.
Without these differences, even Ali vs. Frazier becomes “copy-paste.”

Gameplay & AI Designers

AI tendencies must reflect styles: pressure, counterpunching, volume, stick-and-move.
Ratings only matter if the AI knows how to use them.
Example: A high stamina rating should mean the AI throws in bunches, not that it behaves like every other boxer.

Systems Developers

Missing mechanics strip individuality away.
Clinching, referee intervention, stamina drain, recovery, and damage visuals are all critical.
Without them, a brawler can’t brawl, a defensive wizard can’t showcase slickness, and journeymen can’t grind out tough fights.

3. Ratings as the Foundation (Not the Excuse)

When used properly, ratings teach players that styles make fights:

A “basic” journeyman can still be unique with high chin/low power.
A volume puncher can be dangerous without ever knocking anyone out.
A fragile slickster can look brilliant until he’s caught.

➡️ The numbers don’t erase individuality—the lack of supporting systems does.

4. Educating the Casual Player

To bridge the gap between hardcore fans and newcomers, ratings should be layered:

Layer 1: Overall Rating – Simple, casual-friendly number.
Layer 2: Attribute Breakdown – Power, stamina, defense, recovery, etc.
Layer 3: Traits & Tendencies – Aggressive brawler, elusive counterpuncher, volume puncher, iron-chinned journeyman.

The game should also teach while entertaining:

Visual Comparisons: Radar graphs, pre-fight matchup cards.
Tutorials: “Style Spotlight” explaining why certain boxers succeed despite low power.
Dynamic Commentary: “Don’t let the overall fool you—this man lives off stamina and defense.”
Keys to Victory: Pre-fight tips like “Keep him at range” or “Wear him down late.”

5. Who Should Be Responsible

Boxing Historian / Stat Analyst → Provides real-world data.
Gameplay Designer → Ensures ratings affect mechanics (stamina drain, punch strength).
AI/Behavior Designer → Programs unique fighting styles.
Animators → Create distinct stances, punches, and movements.
UX/UI Designer → Builds rating screens and matchup visualizations.
Tutorial Designer → Crafts lessons and educational modes.
Commentary/Presentation Team → Reinforces differences with audio and presentation.
Creative Director (Sports Sim Lead) → Ensures authenticity and accessibility balance.

6. The Pipeline Example

Historian: Researches → Frazier = elite stamina, low footwork.
Gameplay Designer: Implements → Low footwork = harder to cut off ring.
AI Designer: Adjusts → Always pressures, high volume inside.
Animator: Animates → Bob-and-weave style, short hooks.
UI/UX: Displays → Radar chart: stamina maxed, footwork low.
Tutorial Designer: Adds → “Fight Frazier” mini lesson.
Commentary: Audio → “Frazier’s engine never stops, but if you make him chase, he struggles.”

7. The Bottom Line

Stop blaming ratings for boxers not feeling unique.
Blame generic animations, shallow AI, and missing mechanics.
Ratings are the foundation; systems, animations, and behaviors are the structure that make even the most basic boxer feel true to himself.

In a real boxing simulation, no two boxers—whether Ali, Tyson, or a journeyman—should ever feel the same.

Names Without Substance: How SCI Misused CompuBox & BoxRec Compared to NBA 2K, Madden, and FIFA

1. What SCI Did with CompuBox and BoxRec

Steel City Interactive (SCI) announced partnerships with CompuBox (boxing’s live punch-stat system) and BoxRec (the official global boxing record keeper). But in Undisputed, those partnerships so far look more like branding deals than functional integrations.

BoxRec is just used for names and official recognition, not for dynamic record tracking, fighter career progress, or rankings.
CompuBox is referenced, but not applied in real-time gameplay analytics the way fans expected — no stat overlays that reflect accuracy, punch breakdowns, or broadcast-style immersion.

Essentially, it feels like “logo placement” instead of true simulation use.

2. How Other Sports Games Handle This

Other major sports games have historically leveraged their partnerships inside the gameplay loop:

NBA 2K uses NBA Advanced Stats and official data tracking to drive commentary, player tendencies, MyCareer statlines, and immersion.
Madden NFL integrates Next Gen Stats from the NFL into player cards, commentary, and presentation overlays.
MLB The Show uses Statcast metrics (exit velocity, launch angle, spray charts) in its broadcast mode.
Even FIFA/EA FC incorporates Opta data to influence realism in commentary and player behaviors.

These integrations make the stat companies part of the sport experience, not just menu dressing.

3. Why This Matters for Authenticity

Boxing fans expect:

BoxRec integration: Rankings, sanctioning body ladders, record updates, matchmaking logic.
CompuBox integration: Round-by-round stat overlays, corner advice influenced by punch counts, commentary lines reacting to real numbers.

Without that, SCI risks looking like they only wanted the names without honoring what those companies do. It undermines the “authenticity” label and makes Undisputed feel more like an arcade presentation than a sim.

4. Missed Opportunities

Here’s what SCI could have done with these partnerships:

Career Mode: BoxRec database pulls real historical records; beating someone updates your “BoxRec ranking.”
Online: CompuBox stats at the end of fights (accuracy, jabs vs. power punches, connect %, body vs. head).
Broadcast Presentation: CompuBox overlays mid-fight, commentary reacting to “he’s only landing 20% of his shots.”
Dynamic AI: Opponent adjusts mid-fight if CompuBox shows they’re being outjabbed or outworked to the body.

This is how NBA 2K, Madden, and others do it — making partnerships functional, not ornamental.