Saturday, December 6, 2025

Stop Blaming The Engine: Boxing Games Desync Because Studios Cut Corners

1. What “desync” actually is (in plain English)

Online players lump a lot of pain under “netcode” or “desync,” so let’s separate a few concepts:

Lag/latency: The time it takes for data to travel between players or to the server.
Stutter/packet loss: Data is delayed or dropped, causing freezing, rubber-banding, or teleporting.
Desync (desynchronization): The game thinks the fight is in different states on different machines, so what you see on your screen is not what the other player (or the server) sees.

Technical definition:

A desynchronization is a disagreement of the game state between the server and at least one client in a multiplayer game – the parties are no longer running the simulation identically. Official Factorio Wiki

That’s why you get horror stories like:

“On my screen, I blocked that hook.”
“On their screen, I got dropped, and the ref counted me out.”

That is desync: two parallel universes of the same match.

2. Why boxing games are especially sensitive to desync

A 1v1 boxing or fighting game is built around:

Frame-tight windows (slips, counters, parries, pull counters, feints).
Exact spatial relationships (in/out of range by a few centimeters).
Hit/hurt boxes, collision, and physics on gloves, heads, and torsos.
Big animations that must line up (uppercut into the chin at the right frame).

If both clients are not simulating the exact same events in the exact same order, you get:

Ghost hits that register on one side and not the other.
KO or stun states that don’t match.
Weird “rewind” or “teleport hit” feeling during exchanges.

Fighting games have known this problem for decades, which is why they gravitated toward lockstep and then rollback netcode to keep everyone in sync. Wikipedia+1

3. Engines, netcode models, and where desync comes from

3.1 Netcode models used in fighting/boxing games

Most fighting/boxing netcode falls into one of these buckets:

Delay-based / lockstep
- Both players wait until everyone’s input for a frame is received before simulating.
- Adds input delay to keep the game in sync, often half the round-trip time. YellowAfterlife+1
- Feels sluggish and can freeze when latency spikes.
Pure client-server with reconciliation
- Common in shooters.
- Server is “truth,” clients interpolate/extrapolate.
- Hard to use for frame-perfect 1v1 combat, because you’re guessing where the opponent is and then reconciling after the fact.
Rollback (what the FGC is obsessed with)
- Clients simulate immediately using predicted opponent inputs.
- When real inputs arrive, if predictions were wrong, the game rolls back to the last good state, replays inputs, and corrects the timeline. glossary.infil.net+1
- Requires the game to:
  - Save previous world states.
  - Re-simulate multiple frames quickly.
  - Be deterministic (same inputs → same results, every time) across machines.

Rollback was codified and popularized by GGPO, middleware built specifically for fighting games. It’s now open-source under MIT and is used or emulated by many modern fighters. Wikipedia+2GGPO+2

3.2 Where desync comes from in any engine

Regardless of engine, desync usually traces back to one or more of:

Non-deterministic simulation
- Floating-point differences, non-seeded random numbers, physics that depend on frame rate, or systems that run in a different order on each machine can all cause “same inputs, different results.” Game Development Stack Exchange+1
Mismatched content/code
- Different data, mods, or executables on each client lead to different logic. Many RTS and 4X games list content mismatches as a core desync cause. FAForever Forums+1
Bad or partial rollback implementation
- Not snapshotting all relevant state.
- Only rolling back parts of the simulation (e.g., positions but not stamina or damage).
- One-sided rollback (only one machine correcting), which causes bizarre visual behavior. Reddit+2Developer Forum | Roblox+2
Trying to “fake” a fighting game with generic shooter netcode
- Replicating full character transforms, camera, physics, and animation like a shooter can yield subtle divergences over time if not designed as a strict deterministic sim.

None of that is tied to “Unity vs Unreal” – these are design and engineering issues.

4. Does the engine matter?

Short version: it matters for cost and difficulty, not for possibility.

4.1 Unreal Engine

Unreal’s default multiplayer model is server-authoritative replication (great for shooters).
It does not give you plug-and-play rollback fighting game netcode.
Devs who tried to add true rollback in UE5 describe it as “hard” and note that the engine doesn’t provide much out-of-the-box support; you end up writing your own ticking/simulation flow and state management. Epic Developer Community Forums+1
However, there are projects integrating rollback with Unreal via custom code or GGPO-style approaches, including experimental FPS demos built on UE5 + GGPO. GitHub

So: possible in Unreal, but you must plan for a lot of custom engineering.

4.2 Unity

Unity has multiple networking stacks (legacy UNet, NGO for GameObjects, 3rd-party frameworks).
Fighting-game devs often rely on custom deterministic layers or middleware like UFE Netcode, which combines frame delay with rollback. Reddit+2ufe3d.com+2
Successful Unity fighters with rollback (e.g., Power Rangers: Battle for the Grid) prove it’s fully doable. Unity Forum

Again: possible, but you must respect determinism and design around rollback.

4.3 Custom engines

Arc System Works, Capcom, etc., often use custom or heavily modified engines tuned for rollback and 2D/2.5D fighters.
The advantage is full control; the disadvantage is cost and time.

Key point: desync is not “because of Unreal” or “because of Unity.” It is because the game’s simulation and netcode architecture were not built and disciplined for deterministic, rollback-friendly fighting gameplay from day one.

5. Is there a real fix for desync in a boxing game?

Yes, but it comes as a stack of decisions, not a single patch.

5.1 The architectural fix

For a modern, realistic boxing game, the strongest baseline is:

Deterministic core simulation
- Fixed-step game loop, identical on all machines.
- All combat-critical systems driven by deterministic inputs:
  - Stamina, damage, cuts, block wear, footwork states, hit/hurt boxes.
- No reliance on frame-time-dependent physics for what actually decides hits/blocks.
- Deterministic randomness (seeded RNG) where needed. YellowAfterlife+2Medium+2
Rollback or lockstep-style netcode, not generic shooter replication
- For 1v1 boxing, either:
  - Rollback (GGPO-style): best feel at the cost of implementation complexity, or
  - Deterministic lockstep with some delay: easier to code, but more input lag and pauses. SnapNet+1
- Inputs, not full states, are what travel over the network; each client simulates locally using the same rules.
Authoritative sanity checks
- Periodic checksums or hashes of game state to detect divergence early, a technique used by RTS and other deterministic engines. Official Factorio Wiki+1
- If a severe desync is detected:
  - Hard resync from the authoritative state, or
  - Cleanly drop the match with an error, rather than letting invisible KO outcomes happen.

5.2 The content/system-level fix for boxing

Even with good netcode, you can design your boxing systems to be more network-friendly:

Separate “visual” and “judgment” layers
- The judgment layer decides hits, blocks, and damage using simple geometry and deterministic logic.
- The visual layer plays the fancy blended animations, ragdolls, and camera shakes.
- On rollback, you only must perfectly rewind the judgment layer; visuals can be approximated or smoothed.
Keep online physics simple
- Avoid fully dynamic ragdoll decisions in live rounds.
- Use canned knockdown and stumble trajectories that are deterministic.
- Reserve full ragdoll chaos for replay or spectator cameras, where slight differences don’t affect gameplay.
Normalize timing windows
- Use fixed frame windows for key defensive options (slips, shoulder rolls, counters).
- Make sure those windows are driven by deterministic timelines, not blended animation curves that diverge.

All of that reduces the risk that tiny divergences turn into visible desyncs.

5.3 Operational and UX fixes

A studio that really wants to kill desync will also:

Ship strong connection filters and matchmaking
- Region-based or ping-based matchmaking.
- Minimum connection quality thresholds (e.g., no ranked if ping > X or packet loss > Y).
Expose netcode options to the player
- Input delay vs rollback “aggressiveness” sliders (common in GGPO-style clients). GGPO+1
- Clear UI indicators: ping, rollback count, packet loss.
Invest in tooling
- Internal replay + rollback debugger to reproduce desyncs.
- Automated tests that run the same input streams on different machines and compare checksums frame-by-frame.

Any company that says, “We just can’t fix desync” while not doing these basics is really saying, “We don’t want to spend the money and time.”

6. Hard truth: what cannot be fixed

Even the best netcode in the world cannot:

Turn a terrible Wi-Fi connection into fiber.
Erase 200+ ms ping between players on opposite sides of the planet.
Prevent all visual hiccups when there is heavy packet loss.

Rollback can hide a lot of latency, and smart design can mask many corrections, but:

You will still sometimes see small “teleports” or animation snaps when predictions are wrong. PlayStation Competition Center+1
You will still have matches that the game must terminate or desync-flag because the connection or hardware is too unstable.

The goal is not zero roughness. The goal is:

“No more ‘I got KO’d on my screen but not on theirs.’ When you get dropped, both players see the same knockdown and the same count.”

That is absolutely achievable.

7. So, can a boxing videogame company fix desync?

Yes – if they treat it as a first-class feature, not an afterthought.

To answer your three questions directly:

Can a company fix desync in a boxing videogame?
- Yes. Plenty of fighting games have moved from awful online to solid or excellent online by investing in proper deterministic simulation and rollback or lockstep netcode. The same principles apply to boxing.
Does it matter what engine they use?
- It matters for how hard and expensive the fix is, but not for whether it’s possible.
- Unreal, Unity, and custom engines can all support deterministic, rollback-friendly netcode – but none of them will do it “for free.” You have to design and implement that layer intentionally. Epic Developer Community Forums+2ufe3d.com+2
Is there a fix?
- There is no magic checkbox.
- The fix is a stack:
  - Deterministic combat core.
  - Rollback or lockstep netcode designed for 1v1.
  - Strong content discipline (judgment vs visuals).
  - Tools, telemetry, and connection policies.
- When a studio actually commits to that stack, “desync KOs” become rare edge cases instead of a defining feature of the game’s online play.

If you ever want, we can sketch a boxing-specific rollback architecture: what goes into the state snapshot (stamina, damage, tendencies, foot positions), what’s visual-only, and how to integrate that with your tendency/AI systems so CPU vs CPU and online play both stay honest.

THE 45-YEAR TRUTH: BOXING VIDEO GAMES HAVE NO EXCUSE LEFT

Boxing video games have existed for more than forty-five years, yet the industry still struggles to deliver an authentic, realistic representation of the sport. The problem has never been technology. The problem has been a lack of research, a lack of discipline, and a lack of engagement with the boxing community.

From the arcade era, to 16-bit classics, to the Knockout Kings and Fight Night era, and now to modern engines like Unreal 5 and Unity HDRP, the path has been long enough for studios to understand exactly what fans want. The history is deep. The playbooks already exist. The film libraries already exist. The experts exist. The technology is here.

So why are companies still making the same mistakes?

1. The Industry Refuses to Study Its Own Past

Boxing games are not new. The blueprint is older than many of the developers currently working on sports titles. Over 45 years of trial, error, innovation, and fan feedback have laid the foundation:

KO Kings created stamina and damage identity
Fight Night innovated animation blending and punch physics
Undisputed proved fan hunger for new boxing titles
Niche sims like Title Bout Championship Boxing demonstrated deep ratings, tendencies, and outcome accuracy
Indie attempts have shown creativity in movement, footwork, and camera styles

Developers today have the advantage of hindsight, yet many behave like boxing games were invented yesterday.

2. EA Proved the Excuses Wrong Decades Ago

When EA released the first Knockout Kings, they did not have a prebuilt boxing simulator to copy from. They had:

A small team
Limited resources
No “roadmap” to follow
No motion capture systems like today
No cloud computing
No machine learning
No multimillion-dollar animation pipelines

And they still built something that progressed every single year.

Studios today have more technology, more access, more documentation, and more experienced developers than at any point in gaming history. Yet some try to claim that creating a realistic boxing game is “too hard,” “too niche,” or “too early in their development.”

That is not reality. That is lack of research.

3. “It’s Our First Game” Is Not a Free Pass

A company can be new. A studio can be unproven. But the industry is filled with:

Veteran combat designers
AAA gameplay engineers
AI experts
Animation directors
Researchers
Boxers, trainers, and cutmen willing to consult
Machine learning and mocap solutions for athletes who are retired, injured, or deceased

There is zero excuse to say, “We don’t know where to start.”
The blueprint exists. The community is vocal. The knowledge is everywhere.

When a studio uses “this is our first game” as a shield, that is not freshness. That is failure in research, planning, and team composition.

4. Fans Have Been Doing the Research for Them

Fans have been:

Explaining tendencies
Analyzing stamina and footwork needs
Breaking down punch mechanics with frame references
Asking for realistic damage progression
Requesting amateur systems
Demanding better story modes
Offering feedback for decades

Some fans have produced more research than entire studios.

When fans, content creators, retired pros, amateur boxers, coaches, and communities voice the same needs for years, ignoring that is a choice… not an obstacle.

5. The Industry Must Stop Pretending Boxing Is “Too Hard” to Represent

Basketball has thousands of unique animations per player.
Football has hundreds of AI behaviors and playbooks.
Soccer has extensive movement libraries, tendencies, and personality systems.

Yet developers claim boxing is too complicated?

Boxing is:

One athlete vs one athlete
One arena
A predictable space with known rules
A finite library of punches
A finite library of footwork patterns
A sport with globally documented technique

From a systems design standpoint, boxing is one of the most manageable sports to simulate when research and intention exist.

6. Technology Today Makes Realistic/Sim Boxing Easier, Not Harder

Studios now have:

Motion capture on demand
Machine learning pose estimation
Real-time physics solvers
Blend spaces for nuanced movement
Scriptable traits and tendencies
Massive GPU and CPU power
Cloud simulation
Procedural footwork tools
AI-driven style modifiers
Community testing frameworks

We are living in the easiest era in history to build a realistic boxing game.

The only barrier is commitment.

7. The Real Issue: Commitment to The Craft

It is not that companies cannot build a proper boxing title.
It is that many refuse to commit.

Commit to research.
Commit to authenticity.
Commit to expert consultation.
Commit to community engagement.
Commit to building the systems that boxing deserves.

The only studios that fail are the ones that treat boxing as an experiment rather than a discipline.

....

The industry has had 45 years to learn.
EA was built from nothing.
Hundreds of veteran developers exist.
Fans have been waiting.
The blueprint is documented.
The excuses have expired.

Any studio entering the boxing space today must be ready to research, listen, iterate, and respect the sport. Claiming lack of experience is not an excuse in an industry full of people who have it.

Realistic/sim boxing is not only possible.
It is overdue.

Friday, December 5, 2025

Do Combat Designers And AI Designers Matter In Realistic Boxing Games, And Did Steel City Interactive Have Them? A Full Research-Based Breakdown

Creating a realistic boxing videogame is far more complex than creating a traditional fighting game or a general sports title. Boxing is a tactical, biomechanical, psychological, and stylistic sport that demands true expertise in two critical disciplines.

Combat Design
AI Design and AI Technical Design

These roles are not optional. They are the foundation of any serious attempt at realism and authenticity. When these roles are missing, underdeveloped, or hired too late, the result is always the same. The game defaults into a hybrid or arcade experience, the boxers do not fight like themselves, and the mechanics never reach true simulation depth.

A deep analysis of industry standards and publicly available information strongly suggests that Steel City Interactive did not begin ESBC or Undisputed with the specialized Combat Design and AI Design staff required for a realistic boxing videogame. Below is the full merged and expanded explanation.

1. Why Combat Designers Are Essential In Boxing Games

A Combat Designer defines the feel, logic, and identity of the sport. They are responsible for:

Punch timing, commitment, recovery, and damage
Footwork systems and weight distribution
Defensive layers, slip windows, pivot angles, and counters
Stamina curves, fatigue modeling, momentum swings
Range management and ring generalship rules
Collaboration with animation to ensure biomechanical accuracy
Systems that allow different boxing styles to actually exist

When this role is missing, every boxer feels the same because no one is architecting the underlying mechanics that allow individuality to appear.

Symptoms of a missing or weak Combat Design team

Universal loose footwork for all boxers
Identical turn speeds and movement pacing
Punches with similar timing and pathing
Lack of style-based mechanics, such as inside fighting or slick outboxing
Inconsistent stamina and damage modeling
Simplified block logic and unrealistic defensive behaviors

These symptoms are clearly visible in Undisputed and strongly indicate that SCI did not have a senior Combat Designer leading development during the foundational years.

2. Why AI Designers And AI Technicians Are Equally Critical

AI in a boxing game is not background noise. It is the soul of the simulation.

The AI Designer builds the logic for:

Tendencies and style profiles
Strategy, rhythm, timing, tempo, and adaptive decision making
Counter-punching, pressure fighting, ring cutting, and retreat logic
Adjustments mid-fight
Skill expression across boxer types
Realistic mistakes, openings, and situational intelligence

AI Technicians or AI Programmers implement the systems under the hood, create debugging tools, and ensure performance and responsiveness.

Symptoms of missing AI specialists

All boxers behave the same
No true pressure fighting logic
No real outboxing logic
No meaningful adjustments
Limited counter-punching
Predictable retreat patterns
Lack of personality or tendencies
CPU vs CPU fights expose shallow intelligence

Undisputed displays all of these patterns consistently. This strongly suggests SCI did not have the AI staffing needed for simulation-level realism.

3. How Many Combat And AI Staff Does a Realistic Boxing Game Actually Need

Based on established sports and combat-game studios:

Minimum for a realistic sim prototype

1 Senior Combat Designer
1 AI Designer
1 AI Programmer

Ideal team for a full mid-sized boxing game

2 Senior Combat Designers
2 Gameplay Designers supporting systems
2 AI Designers
2 AI Programmers

Total specialists: 8

AAA ambitions

3 to 4 Combat Designers
3 to 5 AI Designers
4 to 6 AI Programmers

Total specialists: 10 to 15

This staffing is standard for a simulation game aiming for authenticity.

4. Did SCI Have These Specialists? A Research-Based Assessment

A review of SCI’s public hiring, interviews, credits, patch notes, feature removals, updates, and AI behavior reveals the following:

1. Early development showed no dedicated Combat Designer roles.

SCI’s hiring patterns focused on general designers, programmers, and artists. There was no evidence of a senior combat systems specialist.

2. There is no public record of an AI Designer with behavioral simulation experience.

A boxing simulation requires AI designers familiar with:

Utility scoring systems
Behavior trees
Personality profiling
Adaptive decision architecture

SCI’s AI patterns do not reflect this expertise.

3. Interviews repeatedly referenced limitations.

SCI publicly mentioned:

Staff shortages
The difficulty of footwork
The challenge of implementing realism
The reason certain mechanics were removed
That this was their first attempt at a boxing game

These statements align with teams that lack specialists in Combat and AI systems.

4. The gameplay behavior confirms the staffing gap.

AI is uniform, predictable, and non-adaptive.
Footwork is generic and lacks biomechanical nuance.
Punch mechanics do not reflect realistic commitment and torque.
Defensive layers are shallow and incomplete.
Stamina and damage lack sim depth.

These outcomes do not appear when a studio has strong Combat and AI staff from day one.

5. SCI later hired developers with AAA experience, but too late.

This is a common industry issue. If you add senior staff after core systems are already built, they inherit rigid foundations that cannot be easily rebuilt. A public Early Access game cannot be restarted internally without major consequences.

The result is what we see now. Patches that tweak behavior rather than redesign systems. Balance changes instead of simulated logic. New content layered on top of incomplete fundamentals.

5. Why These Staffing Gaps Explain The 6-Plus-Year Timeline And Undisputed’s Current Limitations

If a studio begins without specialists:

AI does not evolve beyond basic logic
Combat systems remain rigid
Styles cannot be represented properly
Animation depth cannot expand realistically
Fixing issues late becomes extremely expensive
Updates remain surface-level instead of systemic
The game leans toward hybrid or arcade balancing

A realistic simulation cannot emerge when the architecture never had the proper designers at the helm.

6. Final Assessment

How important are Combat and AI Designers?

Absolutely essential. They determine realism, authenticity, style, depth, and longevity.

How many are needed?

For a real sim:
Minimum 3 core specialists
Ideal mid-sized team: 8
AAA ambition: 10 to 15

Did SCI have them? Based on research, evidence suggests:

They likely did not have a Senior Combat Designer during foundational development.
They likely did not have dedicated AI Designers to build behavior, tendencies, and styles.
They hired more experienced staff later, but after the structural foundation was already set.
The game’s AI and mechanics reflect these gaps clearly.

This explains the inconsistencies, uniformity, and limitations the community experiences today.

Below is the fully merged, unified, expanded article, combining the entire previous breakdown of all complementary developer roles plus the updated Section 3 with AI and Machine Learning motion-capture technology for recreating boxers who are injured, elderly, unavailable, or deceased.

This version is cohesive, deeply structured, and ready for your blog, digital book chapter, or design document.

The Complete Developer Ecosystem Required To Create Realistic, Mannerism-Rich, Authentic Boxers In A Modern Boxing Videogame

A truly realistic boxing videogame cannot survive on Combat Designers and AI Designers alone. Those roles are the architects of authenticity, but they depend on an entire ecosystem of specialized developers, technical artists, machine learning experts, animators, and consultants.

To faithfully recreate boxing styles, mannerisms, behavioral systems, footwork rhythms, psychological patterns, and legendary fighters from every era, a studio must assemble a cross-disciplinary team with specific expertise.

Below is the complete, modern breakdown of every role a Realistic/Sim boxing game requires, including new technologies that allow studios to recreate boxers who are too old, injured, or deceased.

1. Animation Director

Why This Role Is Essential

A simulation boxing game lives or dies on how a boxer moves. The Animation Director ensures every movement reflects real biomechanics.

Responsibilities

Oversees punch technique accuracy
Ensures footwork animations match weight shifts
Maintains animation quality and consistency across the roster
Ensures each boxer has unique animation signatures
Collaborates directly with Combat Designers on timing and commitment

Outcome

Every boxer moves like themselves, not like a template.

2. Senior Technical Animator

Why This Role Is Essential

This position binds animation and gameplay. Without technical animation support, even the best mocap feels stiff or disconnected.

Responsibilities

Builds blend trees and state machines
Implements procedural footwork and head movement
Syncs frames to mechanics like impact, block, and slip windows
Polishes root motion or hybrid motion systems
Integrates AI-generated or mocap data into gameplay

Outcome

Natural transitions, responsive movement, and believable punch flow.

3. Mocap Director, Mocap Fight Coordinator, and AI Motion Capture Team

This is where modern boxing simulation enters a new era.

A traditional mocap team alone is no longer enough. Many legends cannot move like they did in their prime. Some are too old, injured, retired, or physically limited. Some have passed away entirely. A Realistic/Sim boxing game needs a hybrid pipeline combining physical mocap and advanced AI reconstruction.

A. Traditional Mocap Responsibilities

Directs fighters, stunt doubles, or trained performers
Captures footwork, defense, punches, stamina states
Records transitions, unique rhythms, weight transfer

B. AI and Machine Learning Motion Capture

This new component solves the biggest problem in sports game realism.

Technologies Used

AI Pose Estimation
Extracts 3D skeletal motion from old footage.
Neural Motion Reconstruction
Rebuilds incomplete movements into full sequences.
Style Transfer Models
Applies a boxer’s specific movement style onto a performer.
For example:
- Ali’s bounce
- Tyson’s peek-a-boo rhythm
- Chavez’s pressure footwork
- Roy Jones Jr.’s unorthodox cadence
- Joe Louis’ textbook efficiency
Movement Synthesis Networks
Generate missing motions like slip-to-counter transitions or pivot sequences.
AI Frame Interpolation
Converts slow or limited demonstrations from older boxers into full-speed realistic data.

C. Stand-In Performers + AI Enhancement

A stunt boxer performs key motions, and AI reshapes them to match a legend’s exact style signature.

D. Historical Footage Mining

Machine learning can extract:

Feints
Guard adjustments
Habits
Punch cadence
Reactive defense patterns
Moment-to-moment rhythm shifts

E. Sources Used

Professional fights
Shadowboxing clips
Gym training footage
Interviews showing posture and gestures
Archival recordings of deceased boxers

F. Support Staff For This Pipeline

Machine Learning Engineer
AI Motion Capture Specialist
Video Data Curator
Motion Reconstruction Artist
Style Consultant
Stunt Boxer Performer

Outcome

You can recreate legends and modern boxers with unparalleled authenticity, even when they cannot physically perform.

4. Behavioral Systems Programmer

Why This Role Is Essential

The AI Designer’s ideas cannot function without the Behavioral Systems Programmer who builds the architecture of intelligence.

Responsibilities

Creates utility scoring systems
Implements blackboard AI frameworks
Builds adaptive decision trees or state machines
Supports tendency, personality, and style modules

Outcome

AI that reacts, adapts, and behaves like a human boxer.

5. Data Scientist or Gameplay Data Analyst

Why This Role Is Essential

Realistic behavior needs real data.

Responsibilities

Analyzes punch output, stamina curves, ring control metrics
Creates statistical profiles for tendencies
Validates simulation accuracy
Helps balance AI difficulty without artificial cheats

Outcome

AI that “feels” legitimate because it is based on boxing data.

6. Systems Designer With Sports Simulation Expertise

Why This Role Is Essential

This designer oversees the deeper rules that define boxing as a sport.

Responsibilities

Builds stamina systems and fatigue curves
Designs damage systems
Creates ring generalship algorithms
Handles clinch, referee, and foul logic
Structures depth for punch accuracy, defense, and situational awareness

Outcome

A true simulation where mechanics reinforce real boxing intelligence.

7. Narrative and Trait Designer

Why This Role Is Essential

Boxers are characters. They have psychology.

Responsibilities

Designs personality traits
Builds behavioral patterns
Creates “hurt logic,” “tired logic,” “winning logic,” and “losing logic”
Defines mental states such as aggression, caution, risk-taking, and resilience

Outcome

Every boxer feels emotionally real.

8. Audio Designer Specialized In Combat

Why This Role Is Essential

Boxing realism is not only visual. It is audible.

Responsibilities

Records signature breaths, grunts, shuffles, glove adjustments
Matches audio cues to AI decisions
Syncs impact sound with torque and damage calculations

Outcome

Boxers sound alive, not generic.

9. Technical Gameplay Designer

Why This Role Is Essential

This role bridges gameplay mechanics, combat system logic, and animation.

Responsibilities

Tunes hit frames, recovery, interruption windows
Manages hitboxes, hurtboxes, and punch pathing
Ensures mechanics reflect real-world timing

Outcome

A boxer’s actions feel grounded in real physics and timing.

10. Machine Learning Engineer (Advanced Role)

Why This Role Is Essential

ML can learn stylistic data that humans might miss.

Responsibilities

Trains models on fight footage
Builds predictive movement analysis
Helps synthesize new footwork or punch sequences
Supports AI Designers with adaptive behavior logic

Outcome

Boxers behave more naturally, unpredictably, and authentically.

11. Gameplay QA Analyst (Combat Specialist)

Why This Role Is Essential

Realism requires iteration and correction.

Responsibilities

Tests boxer tendencies
Evaluates footwork speed, rhythm, punch variety, stamina curves
Runs CPU vs CPU tests for realism verification

Outcome

AI remains true to the sport across patches.

12. Sports Consultants (Boxers, Trainers, Analysts)

Why This Role Is Essential

No simulation survives without real-world input.

Responsibilities

Validates movement, strategy, timing, and decision logic
Helps codify style differences
Reviews AI behavior and tendencies

Outcome

Boxers fight authentically, not theoretically.

13. UX Designer For Sports Simulation Tools

Why This Role Is Essential

Developers and players need powerful, intuitive interfaces.

Responsibilities

Designs tendency sliders
Builds AI debugging dashboards
Creates trait editors and style configuration tools

Outcome

Customization becomes deep, accessible, and production-friendly.

Final Summary: The Full Developer Ecosystem Needed For True Boxing Simulation

To complement Combat Designers and AI Designers, a studio must integrate:

Animation and Motion Team

Animation Director
Senior Technical Animator
Mocap Director
Fight Coordinator
AI Motion Capture Team
Stunt Boxer Performer
Motion Reconstruction Artists

AI and Behavioral Team

AI Designer
Behavioral Systems Programmer
Data Scientist
Machine Learning Engineer
AI Motion Capture Specialist

Combat and Systems Team

Technical Gameplay Designer
Systems Designer
Gameplay QA Combat Specialist

Personality and Presentation Team

Trait Designer
Audio Designer
Sports Consultants
UX Designer

What This Achieves

Authentic biomechanics
Boxers with real tendencies and adjustments
Accurate movement for retired, aging, injured, or deceased fighters
Styles based on real footage and AI motion synthesis
Psychological and emotional depth
Realistic stamina, timing, and strategy
True individuality across the roster

This is the complete blueprint for a modern, realistic, simulation-grade boxing videogame.

Should SCI Feel Undisputed Was a Success Because It Sold One Million Copies?

The Honest Answer

Selling one million copies sounds impressive on the surface. It is a milestone many studios celebrate, and any developer has the right to be proud of hitting that number. However, a sales figure by itself does not determine whether a game was truly a success. In the case of Undisputed, the one million sales milestone tells only part of the story and cannot be used as evidence that the game accomplished what it set out to achieve.

Here is the deeper reality behind that number.

1. Undisputed Sold a Million Copies Because Boxing Fans Were Starving for a Boxing Game (It Was More So Because of What ESBC/Undisputed was Originally Advertised as)

The demand for a modern boxing game is enormous. The market has been ignored for over a decade. Boxing fans have repeatedly shown that they will buy almost any game that gives them even the possibility of representing their sport.

That means:

• The million sales reflect demand for the genre, not satisfaction with the product
• People bought potential, not the final state
• The hype around the ESBC Alpha Showcase drove purchases more than the game itself
• Early access was supported out of hope, not because features were complete

The number represents hunger, not success.

2. A Million Sales Do Not Excuse Missing Fundamental Mechanics

Undisputed reached one million sales despite lacking:

• clinching
• referees
• realistic footwork
• authentic stamina and pacing
• damage consistency
• inside fighting
• tendencies and capabilities
• style identity
• believable punch physics
• strong AI behavior

Selling a million copies does not make this acceptable. It only proves that fans desperately want a boxing game, not that SCI delivered a complete one.

3. Sales Without Retention Are Not Success

Success is not measured by how many people buy a game.
Success is measured by:

• How many continue playing
• How many leave positive reviews
• How many recommend it
• How many return after updates
• How many invest long-term in the ecosystem

Undisputed struggled with:

• Player retention
• Steam review stability
• Community trust
• Market confidence
• Credibility among boxing gamers

A million sales cannot erase these challenges.

4. Studios Do Not Judge Success Solely by Initial Sales. They Judge by Vision and Delivery.

True success is defined by whether the game:

• fulfilled its promises
• aligned with its marketing
• represented the sport authentically
• achieved design goals
• built community trust
• delivered on long-term potential

Undisputed:

• promised a simulation
• marketed a simulation
• showcased realistic systems early
• built a fanbase around realism

But released a game that drifted away from those principles.

A million sales do not retroactively correct that gap between promise and product.

5. Sales Without a Strong Foundation Hurt the Sequel, Not Help It

In the industry, a successful first game sets up the sequel for:

• trust
• stability
• long-term retention
• licensing confidence
• funding confidence
• design maturity
• brand loyalty

Because Undisputed has foundational issues, the million sales do not guarantee future success. In fact, they create higher expectations that the studio must now live up to.

A million sales without structural stability is pressure, not victory.

6. Undisputed May Be a Commercial Success, But Not a Design Success

If SCI views the one million sales as a pure win, they risk ignoring the most important reality:

Commercial success does not equal mechanical success.

The sales number says,
“People wanted this game to succeed.”
The gameplay says,
“The foundation is not finished.”

These two truths cannot be confused.

7. The Studio Should Acknowledge the Milestone but Not Let It Distract from the Reality

A healthy perspective would be:

• Be grateful for the sales
• Be proud that the market is alive
• Recognize that demand is real
• Accept that the game is not finished
• Admit the foundation needs rebuilding
• Understand community expectations
• Acknowledge that sales do not erase issues

The worst thing SCI could do is use the million copies sold as a shield against criticism or a justification for design choices that abandoned realism.

No. Selling a million copies alone does not mean Undisputed was a true success.

It means:

• Some boxing fans were desperate
• The initial ESBC vision generated massive hype
• the market is hungry
• the community wanted realism
• buyers believed in what was promised

But it does not mean:

• The game fulfilled its vision
• The mechanics are complete
• The simulation is authentic
• The community is satisfied
• The foundation is strong
• The future is secure

A million units sold is a milestone, not a verdict.
Undisputed is only a true success if it delivers on the simulation fans were promised.
So far, the sales numbers say one thing, and the game’s condition says another.

Why Undisputed Failed: The Damage Was Done Before AAA Developers Arrived, and the Leadership Structure Was Never Built Correctly. Later Direction Shifts Only Made Things Worse.

Undisputed did not collapse because of a small team or a lack of passion. It collapsed because Steel City Interactive never built the leadership infrastructure, hiring framework, or internal production structure required to develop a simulation sports title. The problems began early, long before a couple of AAA developers joined the team, and by the time they arrived, the foundation was already compromised.

But there is another layer that must be acknowledged.
Even if SCI had hired proper leadership from the beginning, later changes in management, messaging, and the studio’s public-facing direction created further instability. After new communication and strategy voices entered the studio, many fans observed a noticeable shift in tone and approach that appeared to redefine what the game was aiming to be.

This is the full picture of why Undisputed ended up in its current state.

A Six-Year Timeline Only Matters When Those Years Are Structured Correctly

Six years is more than enough time to produce a full simulation boxing framework. In any disciplined studio, the early years are used to:

• build locomotion and footwork systems
• establish animation rules
• define punch mechanics
• design stamina and fatigue systems
• integrate damage modeling
• develop AI behavior patterns
• create referee and clinching systems
• lock in simulation principles
• define style identity and tendencies
• unify physics with animation

SCI did not do this. Instead, they restarted systems repeatedly, abandoned prototypes, shifted design philosophies, and patched symptoms instead of solving root problems. The six-year timeline became evidence of mismanagement, not effort.

This is why the game still lacks:

• clinching
• referees
• realistic stamina logic
• style-based footwork
• AI with personality
• damage consistency
• believable punch mechanics
• meaningful inside fighting
• simulation level pacing
• tendencies and capabilities

These are not the results of a small team. They are the results of a studio without leadership or structure during the critical early years.

The Real Inexperience Was in Leadership, Not the Developers

SCI’s early team was not the issue. The issue was that the studio’s founder, who did not have prior experience in building simulation sports games or managing a development pipeline, did not recruit the leadership roles required to guide such a project. SCI began development without:

• internal recruiters or HR
• hiring managers
• experienced team leads
• senior system designers
• simulation experts
• animation directors
• technical directors
• AI architects
• production leads or project managers
• a clear chain of command

Without these roles, early development became directionless. Animations were built before timing rules existed. Footwork was created without style categories. AI was implemented without a behavior tree. Physics band aids were used instead of simulation systems. Stamina did not match pacing because no one unified the design philosophy.

Leadership determines structure. Structure determines quality.
SCI never built the foundation.

A Couple of AAA Developers Joined Too Late To Fix a Project That Needed Reconstruction

By the time SCI brought in a couple of AAA developers, the core architecture of the game was already compromised. They inherited:

• incomplete, inconsistent animation pipelines
• non-modular state machines
• patched movement
• undocumented systems
• physics workarounds
• AI logic that could not scale
• tangled prototypes
• a lack of design documentation
• conflicting philosophies
• systems built in isolation

AAA developers can do great work when they join early. They cannot fix a framework that requires rebuilding while the studio is pushing forward with content, marketing, and short-term patches. They were not placed in leadership roles and were not empowered to make foundational changes.

They were hired into a project, not into authority.

AAA Developers Became Maintainers Instead of Designers

Because leadership did not authorize a complete reconstruction, the AAA hires were used in a maintenance capacity rather than a design or architectural role. Their job became:

• smoothing broken animations
• patching bugs
• optimizing existing content
• minimizing performance problems
• adjusting balance
• helping integrate DLC
• triaging issues instead of solving them

This is not how simulation games are built. This is how unstable pipelines survive.

The Missing Key Point: The Studio’s Direction Appeared To Shift After New Management and Communication Voices Joined

This is the element missing from earlier drafts.

At a certain point in development, SCI brought in new public-facing communication and management personnel. Their arrival coincided with a noticeable change in how the project was messaged to the community.

This is not an accusation.
This is an observation of publicly available communication patterns.

After new strategic voices began speaking on behalf of the studio, fans observed:

• a shift in how realism was framed
• a softening of promises that were previously positioned as core features
• messaging that emphasized accessibility over authenticity
• explanations that defended limitations instead of acknowledging reconstruction needs
• new reasoning for why simulation elements were no longer priorities
• more cautious and corporate communication tone
• a distancing from the original ESBC simulation vision

The introduction of these new voices created an impression that the studio was pivoting away from its initial identity. Whether intentional or not, this change influenced public perception, community expectations, and possibly internal priorities.

This cannot be ignored.
Even with strong early leadership, a later shift in strategic communication or design priorities can override technical vision.

Direction comes from the top. Execution follows direction.

Would Proper Leadership Early On Have Prevented Failure?

Yes and No.

Yes, early leadership would have:

• prevented most technical debt
• established a simulation framework
• unified animation and physics rules
• created consistency across departments
• placed AAA talent in leadership roles, not maintenance roles
• ensured clear documentation and design pillars

But no, it would not have prevented later strategic pivots.
If the studio’s high-level goals shifted after new management or communication personnel joined, even a strong technical foundation would still be affected.

Once the messaging and identity of the game changed, the technical team would be expected to follow that new direction. This is true in every studio.

Undisputed did not fail because of its team.
It failed because of missing leadership infrastructure, poor early planning, and a lack of experienced decision makers guiding the simulation aspects of the project. A couple of AAA developers joining late could not undo years of foundational problems. They were never empowered to rebuild what was broken.

And even if SCI had hired proper leaders at the start, the later shift in the studio’s messaging and project direction would still have shaped the final product. Public communication tone changed. Design framing changed. The stated vision changed. Once that happened, even a perfect early structure would not fully protect the game from a pivot at the top.

Undisputed is not the story of inexperienced developers.
It is the story of inexperienced leadership in the early years, followed by later directional changes that no technical team could overcome.

A More Condense Version of How SCI....

The Lesson Of ESBC And The Price Of Abandoned Vision

In the end, the fall of ESBC into Undisputed is not only the story of a game. It is the story of how ambition without architecture breaks under its own weight, and how a studio can lose the trust of an entire global community when it chooses presentation over substance. It is the story of what happens when a vision is marketed before it is engineered and when a dream is promised before it is structured.

The boxing world is filled with people who respect craft, discipline, and authenticity. ESBC tapped into that spirit. It captured hearts because it promised to respect the sport in a way no modern game had done. That promise mattered. It mattered to boxers. It mattered to fans. It mattered to the culture. And when that promise was broken, the disappointment cut deeper because the hope had been real.

SCI did not fail because the task was impossible. They failed because they did not understand what the task required. They did not build the systems. They did not hire the specialists. They did not secure the sponsorship funding that could have transformed the studio. They did not construct the architecture that simulation demands. Instead, they leaned on marketing, surface-level presentation, and a rhetorical strategy designed to lower expectations rather than rise to meet them.

The community has every right to hold SCI accountable. Not out of anger. Out of respect for the sport. Out of respect for honest development. Out of respect for the belief that boxing deserves a simulation that matches the intelligence, beauty, and brutal strategy of the real thing.

ESBC was not just a game. It was a chance to finally elevate boxing in the gaming industry. Undisputed shows what happens when that chance is mismanaged. It becomes a warning to every studio that follows. If you promise realism, build realism. If you promise identity, build identity. If you promise authenticity, honor the sport. Simulation is not an aesthetic. It is a commitment.

The dream of a true boxing simulation is not dead. It has simply moved on. It waits for another studio, another vision, another team that understands what ESBC never did. Boxing deserves better. The fans deserve better. The sport deserves the game ESBC claimed it would become. And one day, it will get it. The failure of Undisputed ensures that whoever takes up that mission next will know exactly what not to do.

Because the lesson of ESBC is clear. You cannot abandon the foundation and still expect the house to stand. You cannot rewrite expectations to cover gaps in design. You cannot hypnotize fans into accepting less than what was promised. And you cannot call something a simulation without building the systems that prove it.

The boxing gaming community believed because they cared. The next studio that earns their trust will be the one that understands how rare that belief is and how powerful it can be when treated with honesty, expertise, and respect.

CONDENSED VERSION

ESBC captured the boxing world because it promised something no game had offered in more than a decade. Realism. Authenticity. True simulation. The alpha footage showed footwork, recovery, clinching, referees, pacing, and identity. It looked like the future of boxing games. But none of the systems behind those animations ever existed.

SCI built a presentation instead of an architecture. They built content instead of systems. They never hired simulation specialists, never created footwork engines, never built AI tendencies, never implemented stamina realism, and never constructed damage or behavioral logic. When the time came to scale the game, they removed the features they could not support.

Instead of admitting this, SCI reframed realism as restrictive and fun, as separate from authenticity. They claimed unique animations were too expensive. They claimed referees were too difficult. They claimed simulation expectations were unreasonable. All of this contradicts their own marketing and decades of sports gaming standards.

Undisputed sold over one million copies in a week, yet none of that revenue was used to rebuild the missing systems. The game drifted further into arcade mechanics with every patch. Fighters remained identical. AI remained shallow. Clinching, referees, footwork identity, and simulation depth never returned. The dream of ESBC faded because the foundation was never real.

The truth is simple. ESBC never existed as a working simulation. It existed as a promise that SCI abandoned. Undisputed is not the successor fans supported. It is a hybrid boxing game that carries the surface of realism without the substance.

Boxing fans deserved better. The sport deserved better. And the next studio to take up the mantle of a true boxing simulation now knows exactly where ESBC failed. The path forward is clear. Build systems first. Build honesty second. Build trust always. The sport demands nothing less.