Poe’s Game Intel

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Why a Survey Could Be One of the Smartest (and Riskiest) Moves a Boxing Videogame Company Can Make

A survey, if done correctly, can be one of the smartest tools a boxing videogame company uses, not just for data, but for perception, trust, and momentum. It’s also a double-edged sword if mishandled.

Why a Survey Can Be a Great Idea

1. Promotion Without Marketing Spend

A well-designed survey doesn’t feel like research; it feels like participation.

Fans share it because they feel involved
Content creators talk about the questions
Communities debate the options
Every question becomes a conversation starter

For a boxing game, this is huge. Boxing fans love arguing about realism, styles, stamina, damage, and legacy systems. A survey turns that energy into visibility.

2. Rebuilding or Strengthening Trust

For companies in a rough spot, or planning a sequel, surveys signal something important:

“We’re listening before we decide.”

That alone can soften skepticism.

Fans feel acknowledged, not marketed to
Even critics are more willing to engage
Silence turns into dialogue

Trust doesn’t come from promising features; it comes from showing you’re willing to ask before acting.

3. Separating Loud Opinions from Majority Reality

Social media feedback is distorted:

The loudest voices dominate
Extreme opinions travel faster
Nuanced takes get buried

A survey cuts through that.

It helps identify:

What most players actually want vs what’s just trending
Which complaints are niche vs widespread
Where hardcore players and casual players diverge

This is critical for boxing games, where realism vs accessibility is always a fault line.

4. Better Feature Prioritization

Surveys help answer questions teams argue about internally:

Is clinching depth more important than presentation?
Do players want more licensed boxers or better AI?
Does online balance matter more than career depth?
Are players asking for realism, or clarity?

Instead of guessing or relying on Twitter, you get direction backed by volume.

5. Making Fans Feel Like Stakeholders

When players help shape direction:

They become emotionally invested
They defend the game publicly
They’re more patient during development gaps

This matters during sequel development or long rebuilds. Fans are more forgiving when they believe they helped steer the ship.

6. Data That’s Useful Beyond Design

Good surveys don’t just help designers, they help:

Marketing (what messaging resonates)
Community managers (what topics to lean into)
Producers (what not to promise)
Execs (where investment actually matters)

The data becomes ammunition internally when advocating for better AI, more systems, or longer development time.

Where Surveys Can Go Wrong (The Distraction Risk)

1. When They Replace Action

If a survey is used instead of visible improvement:

Fans feel stalled
“They’re just buying time” becomes the narrative
Trust erodes faster than before

A survey must be paired with follow-up communication, even if features aren’t ready yet.

2. When Questions Are Framed Poorly

Bad questions create bad conclusions.

Examples:

Leading questions that push a narrative
Vague options that hide real intent
Over-simplified choices for complex systems (like stamina or AI)

This results in data that looks useful but leads teams in the wrong direction.

3. When Expectations Are Accidentally Set

Every question implies possibility.

If you ask:

“Would you like X feature?” Players assume it’s being considered seriously.

If nothing comes of it, and there’s no explanation, the survey becomes a broken promise in disguise.

4. When Hardcore and Casuals Are Mixed Without Context

A boxing game audience isn’t one group.

Competitive online players
Offline career players
Simulation purists
Casual sports fans

If survey results aren’t segmented, teams may chase compromises that satisfy no one.

5. When Results Are Ignored or Never Addressed

Nothing kills goodwill faster than silence after engagement.

Even a simple response helps:

“Here’s what we learned”
“Here’s what surprised us”
“Here’s what we can’t do, and why”

Acknowledgment matters more than execution speed.

The Smart Way to Use a Survey

A survey works best when it is:

Targeted, not bloated
Transparent, not manipulative
Followed by communication, not silence
Used as a compass, not a shield

It should inform decisions, not excuse delays.

Bottom Line

A survey can:

Promote the game organically
Rebuild trust
Filter real priorities from noise
Turn fans into collaborators

But if used as a stall tactic, PR move, or replacement for progress, it becomes a distraction that costs more goodwill than it creates.

In a genre where fans already feel unheard, how a survey is used matters more than the survey itself.

Tuesday, January 6, 2026

Boxing Isn’t a Niche, and a Survey Would Prove It

Calling boxing a “niche” isn’t a market fact, it’s a framing choice. And for a studio like Steel City Interactive, relying on that framing without evidence risks misreading both the sport and its audience. This is exactly where an official survey becomes not just useful, but necessary.

Boxing’s Global Reach Contradicts the Narrative

Boxing is one of the most globally entrenched sports in the world. Major fights draw tens of millions of viewers across continents. Champions become cultural icons. The sport thrives in the U.S., U.K., Mexico, Japan, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America. That kind of reach doesn’t align with the idea of a small, marginal audience.

If boxing were truly niche, it wouldn’t sustain decades of television deals, billion-dollar promotions, and a constant global pipeline of talent.

Boxing Games Have Already Proven Demand

The idea that boxing games “don’t sell” also falls apart historically. Punch-Out!! became a cultural landmark. The Fight Night series sold millions and dominated the sports genre long before MMA games emerged on the scene. The long absence of boxing games wasn’t caused by a lack of interest; it was caused by licensing issues, shifting corporate priorities, and studios abandoning a complex genre.

Demand didn’t disappear. Supply did.

What “Niche” Often Really Means

When companies label boxing as niche, what they’re often saying is:

Boxing is hard to simulate authentically
Its depth resists simplification
Hardcore fans immediately notice inaccuracies
Designing realism requires more time, iteration, and risk

That’s not a market problem. It’s a design challenge.

“Niche” becomes a convenient shield to justify reduced depth, simplified mechanics, and avoiding optional realism systems that would otherwise satisfy both casual and hardcore players.

How a Survey Cuts Through Assumptions

This is where an official survey becomes invaluable. A properly structured survey would:

Identify how many players want realism, accessibility, or both
Separate casual, hybrid, and sim-focused audiences with real data
Show which features drive long-term engagement versus short-term play
Validate (or challenge) the idea that hardcore fans are a minority

Instead of guessing who the game is for, SCI could prove it.

Optional Systems Are the Real Solution

Surveys don’t force a single design direction. They enable modular ones. Data can support:

Multiple gameplay presets (Sim / Hybrid / Casual)
Optional advanced systems rather than mandatory complexity
Smarter onboarding without sacrificing depth

This avoids the worst outcome: a game that’s too shallow for boxing fans and too demanding for casual players.

Narrative vs Reality

Yes, companies do create narratives to justify decisions. Calling boxing niche makes it easier to:

Downscope features
Ignore detailed community feedback
Frame dissatisfaction as unrealistic expectations

A survey dismantles that narrative. It replaces perception with measurement and opinion with evidence.

Trust, Longevity, and Credibility

Beyond design, surveys rebuild trust. Players react differently when they know they were asked, counted, and acknowledged, even if every request isn’t implemented. For a genre built on authenticity and respect for detail, that trust directly affects retention, word-of-mouth, and long-term success.

The Truth

Boxing isn’t niche.
Authentic boxing games are rare.

And when something is rare, it’s often mislabeled as unviable instead of underdeveloped.

For Steel City Interactive, running an official survey wouldn’t weaken creative vision; it would sharpen it, ground it in reality, and finally answer the question that keeps coming up:

Who is this game really being built for?

Monday, January 5, 2026

If SCI Won’t Ask the Question, They’re Choosing Not to Hear the Answer

If SCI Won’t Ask the Question, Then They’re Choosing Not to Hear the Answer

At this point, this isn’t about Poe’s survey.
It’s about whether Steel City Interactive actually wants to listen to boxing fans at all.

When a community member takes the time to build a serious, thoughtful, realism-focused boxing game survey, and the studio refuses to endorse it, that’s fine. A developer has every right to stay neutral. But neutrality comes with responsibility.

If SCI won’t back a community survey, they are obligated to run their own.

Because right now, what fans are hearing is silence.
And silence sends a message.

It says:

“We already know what you want.”
“Your feedback is anecdotal, not actionable.”
“We’ve decided the direction—now adapt to it.”

That’s not how you build trust with a sports community that lives and breathes detail, authenticity, and long-term depth.

Boxing fans are not casual by nature. This isn’t an annual arcade release. This is a sport built on nuance, foot placement, fatigue, ring IQ, clinch tactics, era differences, rule variations, and psychology. The people still here, still arguing mechanics, still modding, still writing realism essays?
Those are not drive-by players.

Yet without an official survey, SCI can continue to frame hardcore feedback as “vocal minorities” while quietly designing toward a lowest-common-denominator experience.

That’s not data.
That’s avoidance.

An official SCI survey would do three critical things immediately:

Prove who the real audience is
Not who’s loudest on Twitter. Not who plays for a weekend. But who actually wants to invest hundreds of hours into a boxing game.
End the realism vs casual guessing game
Optional systems exist for a reason. A survey would show how many players want sim depth as an option, not a forced default.
Restore credibility
You don’t rebuild trust with patch notes alone. You rebuild it by asking uncomfortable questions—and being willing to see the answers.

If SCI truly believes its current direction is correct, a survey will confirm it.
If they’re wrong, a survey will save them years of misaligned development.

Refusing to endorse a community survey is understandable.
Refusing to replace it with an official one is not.

This community doesn’t want control.
It wants acknowledgment.
It wants to be counted.

Ask the question.
Publish the results.
Build the game with boxing fans, not despite them.

Because if SCI won’t ask, the conclusion becomes unavoidable:

They’re not afraid of the answers.
They’re afraid of what the answers might demand.

Sunday, January 4, 2026

Why A Realistic Boxing Videogame Can Exist, And Why Studios Keep Avoiding It

For decades, boxing video games have struggled with the same identity crisis. They look authentic, sound authentic, and market themselves as simulations, yet they never feel like boxing. Fans sense something is wrong, even if they can’t always articulate it. Punches feel floaty. Weight doesn’t matter enough. Styles blur together. Every fight turns into a brawl.

The problem isn’t that boxing can’t be translated into a videogame.

The problem is that most studios refuse to build boxing truthfully.

Boxing Is One of the Hardest Sports to Simulate

Boxing appears simple on the surface: two fighters, punches, a ring. In reality, it’s a tightly coupled system where everything affects everything else.

Balance affects power.
Power affects recovery.
Recovery affects defense.
Defense affects positioning.
Positioning determines which punches even exist as options.

Most boxing games don’t simulate this chain. They approximate outcomes instead. Punches deal damage, stamina drains linearly, knockdowns are threshold events, and AI is scripted to create “action.”

Once a game is built that way, realism can’t be added later. There’s nothing solid underneath to scale or tune.

The Industry Chooses Predictability Over Truth

Publishers want certainty:

Predictable timelines
Predictable player behavior
Predictable monetization

A true boxing simulation introduces risk:

Some rounds are tactical and quiet
Some fighters refuse exchanges
Skill gaps become obvious
Matches don’t always produce highlights

Executives see that as dangerous. So systems are flattened to guarantee constant engagement — even if it means abandoning realism.

Real boxing doesn’t cooperate with a highlight reel.

Skill Gaps Scare Studios

In an honest system:

Good players dominate bad ones
Button mashers get exposed
Poor habits are punished

Instead of solving this with assist layers, most games remove depth entirely so everyone feels competitive. This improves short-term retention but destroys long-term mastery.

The irony is that other sim genres already solved this problem.

The Proven Solution: One Simulation, Multiple Interpretations

Racing, flight, and skating sims all follow the same rule:

Build one truthful simulation, then scale accessibility, not mechanics.

A realistic boxing game should do the same.

Realistic / Sim Mode

No artificial correction
Full impact of weight, balance, fatigue, and leverage
Stamina is non-linear and punishing
Missed punches matter more than landed ones
Knockdowns emerge from loss of balance and accumulated trauma

Hybrid Mode

Same simulation
Expanded timing windows
Selective input assistance
Clearer feedback
Default online and competitive mode

Casual Mode

Strong assist layers
Faster pace
Higher KO frequency
Simplified decision-making
Full HUD and audiovisual feedback

Nothing about boxing changes. Only how much help the player receives.

This is where past games failed; they rewrote the rules instead of interpreting them.

AI Is the Difference Between “Playable” and “Believable”

Human players forgive flaws. They do not forgive fake AI.

Scripted AI leads to:

Identical fighter behavior
Forced exchanges
Unrealistic pacing

A trait-and-tendency-driven AI:

Creates real stylistic identity
Allows fighters to refuse bad situations
Makes slow fights meaningful
Produces emergent stories without cutscenes

Once AI behaves like a boxer, immersion follows naturally, for casual and hardcore players alike.

Online Play Is Hard, Not Impossible

Online boxing exposes latency more than most genres. That doesn’t make realism impossible; it demands honesty.

The solution isn’t simplification. Its structure:

Server-authoritative hit confirmation
Rollback for inputs, not outcomes
Latency-aware timing windows
Separate online pools per mode

You don’t force sim boxing to feel perfect at high latency. You design around constraints, like every successful competitive game does.

Licensing and Scope Kill Innovation

Boxing licenses are expensive and fragmented. Budgets get burned on:

Fighter likenesses
Marketing
Roster size

What gets cut?

Systems engineering
AI depth
Physics iteration

On top of that, studios try to ship everything at once:

Dozens of fighters
Multiple modes
Cinematics
Career
Online
Esports

A realistic boxing game needs the opposite approach:

One ring
A small roster
A perfect core loop

Then it grows.

So, Can A Realistic Boxing Videogame Be Done?

Yes. Completely.

Nothing required is beyond modern engines or known design practices. Unity and Unreal already support deterministic physics, modular animation graphs, data-driven AI, and layered input systems.

The only requirement is order of operations.

You must build truth first, product second.

The Real Reason It Hasn’t Been Done

Not because it’s impossible.
Not because players wouldn’t accept it.

But because:

It’s harder
It exposes shortcuts
It requires boxing knowledge
It grows slower
It demands confidence from leadership

Most companies don’t want that fight.

Final Thought

A real boxing videogame won’t please everyone.
It will alienate button mashers.
It will reveal skill gaps.
It will grow slowly.

And it will last.

That’s why it hasn’t existed yet.

Not because it can’t,
but because it hasn’t been respected enough to be built correctly.

Friday, January 2, 2026

Why Fight Night Champion And Undisputed Aren’t Boxing Fan Games, And Fail To Truly Represent Boxing

1. They Simulate Outcomes, Not Decision-Making

Real boxing is about continuous decision-making under fatigue, danger, and uncertainty.

Reading feints
Managing range inch by inch
Choosing when not to punch
Breaking rhythm
Sacrificing offense for position

Fight Night Champion

Relies on canned punch chains and stamina-gated damage spikes
Success comes from exploiting systems, not boxing IQ
Fights resolve through pattern mastery, not adaptation

Undisputed

Markets realism but still funnels players into optimal loops
Defensive choices lack long-term consequence
Ring control exists visually, not functionally

Neither game forces the player to think like a boxer.

2. Punches Exist Without Purpose

In real boxing, punches are tools, not damage buttons.

A jab can score, blind, set feet, or steal seconds
A body shot is an investment, not instant payoff
Missed punches change the round even if nothing lands

Fight Night Champion

Punches are judged almost entirely by impact and animation
A missed punch often has no strategic consequence
Punch variety exists, but punch intent does not

Undisputed

Larger punch list, but limited tactical differentiation
Same punch often behaves identically across fighters
No meaningful distinction between probing, measuring, and committing

This turns boxing into attrition combat, not chess with gloves.

3. Fighters Are Skins, Not Minds

Boxers are defined by habits, tendencies, and psychology.

Who panics under pressure
Who gives ground instead of trading
Who fights the clock vs the opponent

Fight Night Champion

Styles are shallow archetypes
AI reacts to player input, not ring context
Great fighters don’t think differently

Undisputed

Talks about tendencies but implements them weakly
Fighters often feel interchangeable once learned
Personality rarely overrides system incentives

A boxing fan recognizes when a fighter behaves wrong. These games don’t.

4. The Ring Is a Stage, Not a Weapon

In boxing, the ring is an active participant.

Cutting off exits
Using ropes to reset exchanges
Corner pressure creating mental collapse

Fight Night Champion

Ring position has minimal mechanical impact
You can win rounds backing straight up endlessly

Undisputed

Improved visuals, same functional problem
No real punishment for losing geography
Ring IQ is optional, not mandatory

Without positional consequence, boxing loses its soul.

5. Damage Lacks Narrative

In real fights, damage tells a story.

A swollen eye changes tactics
A hurt rib alters breathing and posture
Fatigue reshapes risk tolerance

Fight Night Champion

Damage is cosmetic until thresholds are crossed
Flash knockdowns replace sustained breakdown

Undisputed

Better presentation, similar logic
Damage rarely forces strategic evolution

Fans remember how a fight turned—not just who won. These games don’t create that memory.

6. They Are Built For Spectacle, Not Respect

Both games prioritize:

Accessibility over authenticity
Visual drama over invisible fundamentals
“Feeling powerful” over feeling constrained

Real boxing is often uncomfortable, slow, frustrating, and subtle.
Neither title embraces that truth.

The Core Truth

A boxing fan’s game would:

Reward restraint as much as aggression
Make foot placement as important as punches
Force adaptation round to round
Let fighters lose in ways that make sense
Make victory feel earned, not engineered

Fight Night Champion and Undisputed are boxing-themed combat games.

They are not boxing.

That distinction is why fans keep asking for something better—and why they keep feeling unheard.

When Fans Demand Depth But Are Given Surfaces: The Fight Night Forever Social Experiment And The Backlash Against Passionate Feedback

Fight Night Forever really does function as a social experiment, whether intentionally or not.

It shows what happens when a company like SCI alienates a passionate fan base: fans don’t just criticize, they try to replace the experience themselves. But in doing so, they often recreate the very shortcuts they complain about.

The loudest criticism aimed at Undisputed is that many fighters feel like reskins, shared animations, have limited tendencies, and have shallow differentiation. Yet Fight Night Forever, built on a fully complete EA framework, ends up doing much of the same. Modern boxers are visually layered onto legacy fighters, with only surface-level tweaks because the deeper systems—animations, AI logic, tendencies, traits- are locked behind EA’s engine and legal boundaries.

The key difference is perception, not reality.
Undisputed is judged as a new, active product that should evolve.
Fight Night Forever is judged as a rebellion, a fan-made revival of something people already loved.

That emotional context matters. Fans excuse limitations in mods because they see them as acts of resistance or preservation, while holding professional studios to a higher standard. But technically, both suffer from the same issue: without deep AI, tendency, and animation systems, authenticity can’t exist, only illusion.

Fight Night Forever proves three things:

Angered fans will accept imitation if it restores a familiar feeling.
Visual variety alone can convince players that something is deeper than it is.
True realism in boxing games isn’t about licenses or models, it’s about systems, and mods can’t fully rebuild those.

So the contradiction isn’t hypocrisy, it’s frustration. Fans don’t just want boxers; they want behavioral identity. And until a studio builds that foundation from the ground up, both official games and mods will keep circling the same limitations.

The attack on passionate fans’ feedback is one of the biggest problems holding boxing games back.

Instead of being treated as invested stakeholders, vocal fans are often framed as toxic, ungrateful, or impossible to satisfy. That framing is convenient, but inaccurate. Passionate feedback usually comes from players who understand boxing, understand games, and care enough to articulate what’s missing. Silencing or dismissing them doesn’t protect development; it protects weak design decisions.

What’s really happening is a clash between surface metrics and depth expectations. Studios point to visuals, licenses, or sales as proof of success, while fans are criticizing systems: AI behavior, tendencies, ring IQ, punch logic, fatigue, and realism. When those criticisms are answered with marketing talk or defensiveness, it signals that the feedback isn’t being processed at a design level at all.

Worse, the narrative gets flipped. The problem becomes “the community,” not the absence of:

Boxer-specific behaviors
Meaningful style clashes
Adaptive AI
Consequences-driven systems

This is why Fight Night Forever is so telling. Fans are praised for passion when they mod, but labeled unreasonable when they ask a studio for the same depth, despite studios having the resources modders don’t.

Healthy genres evolve because of demanding audiences, not despite them. Boxing is too nuanced a sport for shallow systems, and the fans pointing that out aren’t attacking developers; they’re defending the integrity of the sport.

Thursday, January 1, 2026

Why the Fight Night Forever Mod Still Wouldn’t Lead to a Realistic Boxing Video Game

The Fight Night Forever (FNF) team deserves credit for keeping Fight Night alive. They are a modding team, not a full development studio, and their work is limited by what EA left accessible inside the original Fight Night engine. Because of that reality, their mod unintentionally reinforces many of the same design choices fans have criticized for years.

1. What the FNF Team Actually Does (And Can’t Do)

What they can do:

Add modern boxers by applying new skins, faces, and names to existing fighters
Edit ratings, attributes, and sliders
Make small AI tweaks using the minimal tendency system already present
Adjust presentation elements, menus, and rosters

What they cannot do (because EA locked it):

Add new animations
Create new punch mechanics
Rewrite core AI logic
Implement true boxer-specific tendencies
Change footwork physics, collision systems, or timing models
Add new stamina, damage, or injury systems

These systems are hardcoded and locked by EA. The FNF team does not have source code access, animation pipelines, or engine-level control.

2. Skins Are Not Equal To New Boxers

One of the biggest misconceptions is that FNF is adding “new fighters.”

In reality:

Many modern fighters are visual reskins of older boxers
The underlying fighter still uses the original boxer’s animations, tendencies, and behavior
Two fighters with different names may fight identically under the hood

While the game may look modern, it still plays the same.

This creates surface-level authenticity without mechanical realism.

3. Limited Tendencies Are Not Equal To Real Boxing IQ

Fight Night’s tendency system is extremely shallow:

It lacks real decision-making layers
It doesn’t model risk assessment, ring IQ, fatigue-based choices, or stylistic evolution
Boxers don’t truly adapt mid-fight beyond simple probability shifts

FNF can only tweak values inside this limited system, not replace it.
So the mod can slightly change behavior, but can’t create true boxer personalities.

4. Why This Matters If EA Makes Another Boxing Game

If EA returns to boxing and looks at:

Positive nostalgia
Acceptance of Fight Night-style gameplay
Mods succeeding without core changes

They may conclude:

“The old formula still works.”

That leads EA to:

Reuse arcade-first mechanics
Avoid deep AI and tendency systems
Skip true simulation-level boxing design

Not because they can’t do better, but because the market appears satisfied.

5. The Core Problem Isn’t the FNF Team, It’s the Foundation

This is not an attack on the FNF team.
They are doing the maximum possible within heavy restrictions.

The real issue is:

Fight Night was never built as a true simulation
Its systems prioritize flash, accessibility, and spectacle
Mods can’t fix what’s structurally broken

So FNF ends up preserving EA’s old design philosophy instead of replacing it.

6. Why Fans Want More Than a Revival

Fans asking for realism aren’t asking for:

Better graphics
Bigger rosters
Nostalgia

They want:

Real boxer tendencies
Meaningful footwork and spacing
Punches that matter differently
AI that thinks like a fighter
Consequences for mistakes

None of that can be delivered through a mod built on locked systems.

Bottom Line

Fight Night Forever is a tribute, not a transformation.
Because EA locked animations, AI logic, and core mechanics, the mod can only redecorate the past, not fix it.

If EA makes another boxing game and follows the same blueprint, they will repeat the same mistakes fans hated, not because of a lack of talent, but because the foundation was never designed for realism in the first place.