Saturday, January 17, 2026

Where’s the Data? The Boxing Realistic/Sim Myth the Industry Keeps Repeating

Why the Industry Is Afraid of a Realistic Boxing Video Game

An investigative look at myths, missing data, and the quiet punishment of boxing fans

For more than a decade, publishers, developers, and investors have repeated the same line whenever the subject of a true simulation boxing video game comes up:

“Realism doesn’t sell.”

It’s said with confidence. It’s said as if it’s settled science. And yet, when you look closely, there is no hard evidence to support it. No controlled release. No modern, fully realized sim boxing title existed that has been allowed to succeed or fail on its own terms. Just assumptions, risk aversion, and a long history of misunderstanding boxing fans.

This article isn’t a rant. It’s an examination of why the fear exists, why the excuses don’t hold up, and why the industry keeps talking about data it doesn’t actually have.

1. The Licensing Myth: A Convenient Smokescreen

Licensing is always the first excuse raised.

“Boxing is too hard to license.”
“Too many promoters.”
“Too many individual contracts.”

But licensing has never been the real obstacle.

Indie studios license boxers.
Mobile games license boxers.
Past boxing games licensed boxers under far worse market conditions.
And modern sports games routinely handle fragmented rights across leagues, unions, and individuals.

Licensing is a cost problem, not a design problem, and cost has never stopped companies from chasing profit when they believe the market exists.

When publishers lean on licensing as the reason, what they’re really saying is:

“We don’t want to invest unless success is guaranteed.”

That’s not a boxing problem. That’s a risk tolerance problem.

2. The Steel City Interactive Paradox

Here’s where the narrative really starts to crack.

An indie studio, Steel City Interactive, managed to sell more units with Undisputed than Electronic Arts did with any single Knockout Kings or Fight Night entry.

That fact alone destroys several industry talking points:

“Only AAA marketing can sell boxing.”
“Boxing fans are too small a market.”
“There isn’t enough interest anymore.”

And yet, instead of asking why that happened, many companies quietly rewrote the story.

They claimed:

Fans were “starved.”
Any boxing game would have sold
The sales had nothing to do with realism

But if starvation alone explains the success, why did Undisputed’s sales drop sharply within weeks?

If people were just desperate, the curve would have flattened, not collapsed.

What actually happened is far more telling.

3. The First-Look Effect: What Fans Really Bought

When the ESBC Official Alpha Gameplay Features (First Look) video dropped on YouTube, the response was immediate and measurable:

High engagement
Strong positive sentiment
Widespread sharing among boxing fans
Praise for footwork, pacing, animations, and presentation

Fans didn’t respond to menus.
They didn’t respond to licensed names.
They responded to how the boxing looked and felt.

That first-look footage sold a promise:

A boxing game that respected boxing.

When later builds drifted away from that promise, mechanically and philosophically, interest followed the same downward trajectory.

This is crucial:
The initial sales spike was driven by realism signaling.
The drop-off came when the experience stopped matching the signal.

That’s not a failure of realism.
That’s a failure to commit to it.

4. “Realism Doesn’t Sell,” Where Is the Data?

This is the most important question, and the one the industry never answers.

Where is the data showing that a realistic boxing sim fails?

There has been no modern sim-first boxing release.
No title with deep fatigue modeling, style-specific defense, ring IQ systems, and boxer individuality.
No boxing equivalent of iRacing, Football Manager, or Gran Turismo.

Instead, companies point to:

Arcade-hybrid games
Design compromises
Systems flattened for “balance.”
And then use those outcomes as proof that realism doesn’t work.

That’s not data.
That’s circular reasoning.

You cannot prove realism doesn’t sell by never actually selling realism.

5. The Real Fear: Complexity, Not Sales

What companies are actually afraid of isn’t the market.

They’re afraid of:

Systems depth that’s hard to QA
AI that can’t be faked with rubber-banding
Mechanics that expose bad design
Hardcore fans who notice shortcuts
Balancing realism without dumbing it down
Supporting offline simulation instead of monetized online loops

A real boxing sim is hard.

It demands:

Boxer-specific mechanics
Style asymmetry(imbalance)
Fatigue that changes decision-making
Defense that requires knowledge, not reactions
Long-term AI simulation integrity

That’s expensive, not just to build, but to maintain. And that’s where investor fear comes in.

6. Punishing Boxing Fans for Being Boxing Fans

By framing realism as “non-viable,” the industry does something quietly hostile:

It blames boxing fans for wanting boxing.

Fans aren’t asking for niche obscurity.
They’re asking for:

Options
Depth
Authenticity
Control over realism settings

The same industry that celebrates ultra-deep sims in racing, football management, and flight simulation suddenly pretends boxing fans are unreasonable for wanting the same respect.

That isn’t market logic.
That’s selective condescension.

7. The Truth No One Wants to Say Out Loud

Here’s the uncomfortable reality:

A realistic boxing game would expose how shallow most sports game systems are.
It would demand new AI approaches.
It would attract scrutiny from people who understand the sport.
And it wouldn’t be easily monetized through shortcuts.

That’s why companies keep saying “it wouldn’t sell” instead of admitting:

“We’re not structured to build it properly.”

The Evidence Already Exists

The evidence is not hypothetical.

The first-look gameplay response proved that realism attracts attention.
Early sales proved that boxing fans will show up.
The drop-off proved that betraying realism loses them.
The absence of a true sim proves nothing, except fear.

Until a publisher funds and releases a fully committed boxing simulation, no one gets to claim the market doesn’t exist.

Because right now, the industry isn’t following data.

It’s hiding from it.

What SCI Would Actually Have to Do to Regain Trust

For Steel City Interactive to regain the trust of hardcore boxing fans and serious sports gamers, surface-level updates and marketing language won’t work. Trust was lost at a philosophical level, and it can only be restored the same way—through accountability, transparency, and a clear commitment to boxing as it actually exists.

This is not about pleasing everyone. It’s about respecting the sport and the audience that understands it.

1. Acknowledge the Audience as Adults, Not Casual Consumers

SCI must openly recognize that the core sports-gaming demographic is predominantly adult. Many players have:

Decades of boxing fandom
Experience training, sparring, or coaching
Deep familiarity with legacy sports titles
The ability to recognize design shortcuts instantly

Talking to this audience as if they are impatient, ignorant, or overly emotional has damaged credibility. Respect begins with recognizing who is actually playing—and why.

2. Admit the Game’s Problems Without Soft Language

SCI must plainly state that:

The game launched incomplete
Core systems are fundamentally flawed, not just “rough”
Some design decisions actively contradict boxing reality

Phrases like “ongoing tuning,” “misunderstandings,” or “intended behavior” avoid responsibility. Hardcore fans see through that immediately. Clear admission is not weakness—it’s the foundation of trust.

3. Completely Abandon the One-Size-Fits-All Design Mentality

Boxing is not symmetrical. It is not balanced. It is not fair.

Trying to standardize:

Movement
Defense
Stamina
Recovery
Output
Adaptability

destroys what makes boxing compelling. Styles are not cosmetic—they are strategic identities built on strengths and limitations.

If every boxer can:

Move the same
Defend the same
Recover the same
Fight effectively in every range

then the sport has been reduced to interchangeable avatars.

4. Redefine “Fairness” in Boxing Correctly

The only things that are fair in boxing are:

The ring
The rules
The round structure

Everything else is earned or exploited:

Conditioning
Style matchups
Ring IQ
Physical gifts
Mental resilience

A boxing game that prevents unfair matchups in the name of “balance” is fundamentally misunderstanding the sport.

Players should lose because:

They picked the wrong boxer
They chose the wrong strategy
They failed to adapt

That is not frustration—that is boxing.

5. Restore Boxer Identity Through Constraints and Consequences

True boxer identity comes from limitations, not freedom.

That means:

A pressure boxer should struggle when forced to fight at range
A mover should pay a price for prolonged exchanges
A counterpuncher should suffer when forced to lead
A fragile-chinned boxer should never feel safe in a brawl

When consequences disappear, identity disappears with them.

6. Separate Accessibility From Authenticity

Accessibility should mean:

Clear controls
Readable feedback
Optional assists
Scalable difficulty

It should not mean:

Universal mechanics
Artificial stamina protection
Homogenized styles
Punishment removal

SCI must stop using accessibility as a justification for stripping realism. Options allow both audiences to coexist. Defaults should not dictate ceilings.

7. Address Leadership and Vision Concerns Directly

A significant portion of the community believes Will Kinsler’s design philosophy has harmed the game’s authenticity. Whether this is fair or not, the perception exists—and ignoring it deepens mistrust.

SCI must either:

Make leadership changes and clearly explain why
or
Transparently define who controls gameplay philosophy and system direction

Silence allows speculation to replace facts.

8. Rebuild Trust Through Systems, Not Marketing

Trust will not return through:

Trailers
Buzzwords
Listening posts
Community manager assurances

It returns through:

Detailed system breakdowns
Before-and-after comparisons
Clear design intent rooted in boxing history
Honest explanations of tradeoffs and limitations

Hardcore fans don’t expect perfection. They expect competence, clarity, and respect.

9. Commit to Depth Over Popularity

Chasing universal appeal has already failed.

SCI must decide whether it wants to:

Be a true boxing simulation that stands the test of time
or
Be a broadly appealing product that fades once novelty wears off

Hardcore sports games earn longevity through depth, not mass-market shortcuts.

10. Accept That Discomfort Is Part of Boxing

Boxing is about:

Being uncomfortable
Being outmatched
Being forced into mistakes
Surviving disadvantages

If a boxing game ensures every player always feels capable, safe, and competitive, it has failed to capture the sport’s essence.

11. The Myth That Hardcore and Sports Fans Don’t Drive Numbers or Longevity

One of the most damaging assumptions in modern sports game development is the idea that hardcore fans don’t move the needle. History repeatedly proves the opposite.

Hardcore and sports-literate players:

Stay invested for years, not weeks
Create guides, mods, discussions, and meta-analysis
Drive word-of-mouth far beyond launch windows
Sustain offline and CPU vs CPU ecosystems
Return for sequels if trust is maintained

Casual players spike early sales.
Hardcore players create longevity.

Ignoring this audience doesn’t broaden appeal; it shortens a game’s lifespan.

12. The Myth That Deep Systems Don’t Matter

Another false narrative is that systems like tendencies, capabilities, traits, attributes, specialty punches, and stylistic moves “don’t matter” or “confuse players.”

In reality, these systems are what make sports games watchable, replayable, and meaningful.

They matter because:

They create distinct boxer identities
They produce emergent outcomes rather than scripted ones
They allow organic narratives to form over time
They reward knowledge and mastery
They make CPU vs CPU viable, not just playable

Without them, outcomes feel random or superficial. With them, every fight tells a story, even when the player isn’t controlling it.

13. Why Boxing Especially Needs These Systems

Boxing is not a single mechanic sport. It is an interaction of:

Physical gifts
Technical habits
Psychological tendencies
Tactical decisions
Fatigue management
Risk tolerance

Removing layered systems flattens boxing into repetition. Adding them allows:

Styles to evolve over rounds
Boxers to adapt, or fail to adapt
Late-round identity shifts
Era-accurate behavior
Meaningful matchup variance

This isn’t overdesign. This is the sport.

14. Depth Does Not Alienate Casual Players, Lack of Options Does

Depth only becomes a problem when:

It is forced
It is poorly explained
It lacks scalable access

When systems are optional, layered, and well-presented:

Casual players engage at their comfort level
Hardcore players push the ceiling
Content creators generate long-form engagement
Communities build subcultures and metas

The absence of depth doesn’t protect accessibility; it caps growth.

15. The Long-Term Cost of Ignoring These Truths

When a studio dismisses hardcore fans and layered systems:

Gameplay stagnates quickly
Matches blur together
Replayability collapses
Modders outpace developers
Trust erodes beyond repair

At that point, no amount of marketing can compensate.

Closing Add-On

Hardcore fans are not a liability.
They are the backbone of longevity.

Tendencies, traits, attributes, and stylistic systems are not bloated.
They are the language of sports simulation.

The studios that understand this build games that last.
The ones that don’t chase short-term numbers and disappear just as fast.

Undisputed, Trust, and the Cost of De-Evolving Boxing

The skepticism surrounding Undisputed 2 does not exist in a vacuum. It is a direct consequence of what happened to Undisputed 1, not just how it launched, but how it has changed since.

This is not simply about bugs, missing features, or balance complaints. It is about direction.

Undisputed 1: Incomplete at Launch, Regressive Over Time

Undisputed 1 did not launch as a complete boxing simulation. It lacked:

Fully realized stamina and fatigue systems
Meaningful boxer-specific constraints
Deep AI tendencies and behavioral variance
Real consequences for positioning, pressure, and risk
Robust offline and simulation-driven ecosystems

Many fans accepted this because they believed they were buying into a foundation, not a finished product. The expectation was evolution, more depth, more differentiation, more boxing identity over time.

Instead, the opposite happened.

Rather than layering complexity, updates are increasingly:

Flattened boxer differences
Softened stamina punishment
Standardized movement and defense
Reduced stylistic asymmetry
Increased pace to maintain constant engagement

This wasn’t refinement. It was de-evolution, a shift away from simulation toward a hybrid arcade identity.

Why De-Evolution Is Worse Than an Incomplete Launch

An unfinished game can be fixed.
A flawed system can be rebuilt.

But when a game moves away from what it was sold as, trust collapses.

What many fans witnessed wasn’t a sim struggling to mature; it was a sim retreating from itself. Boxer's identity began to feel like a balance problem. Asymmetry was treated as unfairness. Limitations were smoothed out rather than embraced.

At that point, patience turns into disengagement.

This Is the Context Undisputed 2 Inherits

Because of Undisputed 1’s trajectory, Undisputed 2 would not be judged on trailers, visuals, or marketing promises. It would be judged on memory.

When fans hear “Undisputed 2,” most won’t think:

“A fresh start.”

They’ll think:

“Did they actually learn anything?”

That changes everything about sales, reception, and longevity.

If Undisputed 2 Is Arcadey or Hybrid, Here’s What Happens

If Undisputed 2 launches as an arcade or hybrid title:

There would be no mass outrage
There would be no excitement surge
There would be quiet disengagement

Hardcore boxing and sports-sim fans wouldn’t rage endlessly. They’d simply:

Skip day-one purchases
Wait for deep system breakdowns
Watch instead of playing
Or walk away entirely

That silence is far more damaging than backlash.

A hybrid design doesn’t create loyalty. It creates short-term sampling.

Would Undisputed 2 Sell as Well as Undisputed 1?

Almost certainly no.

Undisputed 1 sold on:

A decade-long absence of boxing games
Nostalgia and goodwill
The promise of a true simulation
Fans are buying in before seeing the final product

That opportunity only exists once.

A sequel inherits skepticism, not hope.

An arcadey or hybrid Undisputed 2 would likely:

Sell fewer copies at launch
Have weaker word-of-mouth
Lose its core audience faster
Struggle with long-term engagement and DLC viability

Casual players would not make up the difference. They never do in niche sports titles.

The Permanent Narrative Risk

If Undisputed 2 follows the same hybrid path, the narrative becomes fixed:

“Steel City Interactive will never make a real boxing simulation.”

Once that belief sets in:

Promises stop mattering
Patches don’t restore trust
Sequels lose the benefit of the doubt
The franchise ceiling collapses

That damage is long-term and often irreversible.

The Core Problem Is Direction, Not Difficulty

Fans did not lose trust because:

Boxing is complex
Systems are hard to learn
Balance was imperfect

They lost trust because the game stopped moving toward what it claimed to be.

An incomplete simulation can earn patience.
A simulation that abandons itself cannot.

Final Reality

Undisputed 1 launched incomplete
Fans stayed because they believed in evolution
Updates flattened systems instead of deepening them
The game drifted into a hybrid arcade identity
That drift broke belief, not just satisfaction

This is why skepticism around Undisputed 2 exists.
This is why sales parity with Undisputed 1 is unlikely without a true reset.
And this is why the reaction wouldn’t be outrage, but silence.

For Steel City Interactive, the question is no longer how to market the sequel.

It’s whether they’re willing to choose a direction and commit to it honestly.

The Core Problem: Publishers Are Using the Wrong Historical Lens

Many publishers and investors still rely on assumptions formed in the mid-2000s:

“Simple sells better.”
“Depth scares casuals.”
“Hardcore fans are loud but small.”
“Sports games peak at launch.”
“Simulation limits market size”

Those assumptions were formed in an era when:

Online ecosystems were primitive
Post-launch support was limited
Communities had no amplification tools
CPU vs CPU, sliders, mods, and creator culture barely existed
Games were disposable products, not platforms

That world no longer exists.

SCI’s challenge is not arguing philosophy—it’s updating the mental model investors are using.

Step 1: Reframe Hardcore Fans as a Retention Engine, Not a Niche

SCI has to stop letting hardcore fans be framed as “difficult” or “minority.”

Instead, they must present them as:

Lifetime value multipliers
Organic marketers
Community infrastructure builders
Longevity drivers

Hardcore fans:

Keep games alive between releases
Create guides, sliders, leagues, mods, and narratives
Drive CPU vs CPU viewership
Support DLC if systems are deep enough
Buy sequels when trust is intact

Casual fans spike revenue.
Hardcore fans extend it.

That distinction is critical in modern monetization models.

Step 2: Prove That “What Worked Before” Wasn’t Actually Ideal Then Either

This is the uncomfortable truth publishers avoid:

Fans didn’t love older sports games because they were simple.
They tolerated limitations because technology couldn’t support more.

Fifteen and twenty years ago:

AI depth was limited
Storage was constrained
Sliders were shallow
Career modes were thin
Offline ecosystems were barebones
Tendencies and traits were implied, not modeled

Fans complained then too—they just had fewer places to be heard.

The massive wishlists people like Poe create today aren’t entitlement.
They’re deferred demand finally having a voice.

Step 3: Translate Wishlists Into System Buckets (Not “Scope Creep”)

Publishers fear wishlists because they see chaos.

SCI needs to translate fan wishlists into structured system pillars, such as:

Tendencies & behavior modeling
Capability ceilings & limitations
AI decision trees & adaptation
Offline ecosystem depth
Sliders and customization layers
Era and style differentiation

This turns “fans want everything” into:

“Fans want control, identity, and consequence.”

That’s not scope creep.
That’s system clarity.

Step 4: Show That Depth Is Modular, Not Mandatory

One of the biggest misconceptions investors have is that depth must be forced on everyone.

SCI needs to clearly demonstrate:

Systems can be layered
Complexity can be optional
Defaults can be approachable
Ceilings can remain high

Modern games succeed by:

Letting casuals play at the surface
Letting hardcore fans dive deep
Never capping the ceiling to protect the floor

This is how modern strategy games, sims, RPGs, and sports sandboxes survive long-term.

Step 5: Use Modern Metrics, Not Legacy Sales Logic

SCI should push discussions away from:

Day-one sales obsession
Simplistic “mass appeal” logic

And toward:

Retention curves
Engagement depth
Content creator lifespan
CPU vs CPU watchability
Offline replayability
Long-tail DLC viability

In the modern era, a sports game that:

Holds players for years
Generates ongoing discussion
Supports multiple playstyles
Enables emergent narratives

…is more valuable than a short-lived launch spike.

Step 6: Reposition Undisputed as a Platform, Not a Product

What publishers need to hear is this:

A boxing platform with:

Deep systems
Customizable realism
Offline ecosystems
AI-driven variety
Community tooling

…has far more longevity than a yearly arcade-leaning product.

This is especially true in a genre with:

No annual competition
A star-driven real-world sport
Strong historical interest
Cross-era appeal

Step 7: Stop Apologizing for Hardcore Fans

SCI must stop framing hardcore feedback as:

“Too much”
“Impossible”
“Unrealistic expectations”

Instead, frame it as:

Design intelligence
Market research
Free long-term QA
Community investment

Hardcore fans don’t want everything.
They want authentic systems that respect boxing reality.

The Reality Investors Need to Accept

What worked 15–20 years ago:

Was constrained by technology
Was tolerated, not ideal
Would be criticized today
Will not sustain modern communities

The reason fans have massive wishlists now isn’t nostalgia—it’s evolution.

They’ve seen:

What other genres achieved
What moddable games can do
What simulation depth enables
What long-term ecosystems look like

They’re not asking to go backward.

They’re asking the genre to catch up.

Bottom Line

SCI doesn’t convince investors by arguing passion.

They convince them by showing that:

Hardcore fans equal longevity
Depth equals retention
Systems equal replayability
Options equal accessibility
Old assumptions equal short lifespans

The question isn’t whether modern sports fans want more.

They already do.

The real question is whether publishers are willing to stop funding yesterday’s solutions for today’s audience.

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Why Arcade or Hybrid Boxing Games Don’t Work in the Modern Era

Below is a single, unified article that merges all prior points into one coherent, long-form post. It’s written to stand on its own—clean narrative, no repetition, no back-tracking—something you could publish as a blog post, LinkedIn article, or read straight on a podcast.

Why a Hybrid or “Balanced” Boxing Game Will Not Bring Fans Back

And Why Arcade Boxing Has No Modern Proof of Life

There is a persistent belief inside modern sports-game development that casual players matter more than hardcore fans, and that a hybrid or balanced design approach is the safest way to keep everyone happy.

In boxing games, that belief has never been proven true.

In fact, history shows the opposite: hybrid boxing games do not recover lost fans, and fully arcade boxing games have not succeeded in the modern console market at all.

This isn’t opinion. It’s pattern recognition.

The Misunderstanding at the Core of Modern Boxing Games

When companies say “casuals are more important”, what they usually mean is:

Casuals buy quickly
Casuals don’t complain as loudly
Casuals don’t demand long-term depth

That logic may work in other genres.
It breaks down completely in boxing.

Boxing is not abstract.
It is exposed, intimate, and mechanical.

Every flaw is visible:

Distance
Foot placement
Timing
Fatigue
Damage
Defense responsibility

You cannot simplify those systems without changing what boxing is.

What Actually Happens If Hardcore Fans Walk Away

If hardcore boxing and sports-gaming fans disengage from Undisputed, the short-term results may look deceptively fine:

Initial sales don’t collapse
Marketing still carries the launch
Casual players fill the first few weeks

But then the real damage begins.

Hardcore players are not just “customers.”

They are:

The long-term player base
The competitive backbone
The people who create metas, mods, guides, and discourse
The ones who keep online modes alive

When they leave:

Matchmaking thins out
Skill ceilings flatten
The game feels repetitive faster
Casual players leave next, without understanding why

Casuals don’t build ecosystems.
Hardcore fans do.

The Hybrid Myth: Where Boxing Games Go to Die

A “hybrid” boxing game usually delivers the worst of both worlds:

Too complex for true casuals
Too shallow for boxing fans
Too compromised to feel authentic

This creates a dead zone, a space where:

The game isn’t fun enough to be arcade
Isn’t deep enough to be a simulation
And isn’t honest about what it’s trying to be

Once a boxing game enters that space, it doesn’t recover.

The Historical Reality: Arcade Boxing in the Modern Era

Let’s be direct.

When did an actual arcade boxing game succeed in the modern console market?

It didn’t.

Not sustainably. Not competitively. Not culturally.

Punch-Out!!

Arcade classic revived through nostalgia
Succeeded because of Nintendo's legacy, not boxing realism
Single-player novelty
No competitive ecosystem
No influence on modern boxing design

This was not a model; it was a museum piece.

Creed: Rise to Glory

Arcade systems masked by VR immersion
Niche success is limited by hardware
Not transferable to controller-based boxing games

VR hides shallowness. Controllers expose it.

Big Rumble Boxing: Creed Champions

Fully arcade
Celebrity skins, spectacle over substance
Brief launch buzz
No lasting player base
No competitive credibility

Proof that arcade boxing can launch, but not last.

Real Boxing

Arcade succeeds only in mobile ecosystems
Short sessions, simplified stamina, touch controls
Monetization-driven design

Mobile success does not translate to console authenticity.

The One Modern Benchmark That Still Matters

Fight Night Champion

This is the outlier, and the lesson.

Not pure simulation
But system-driven
Physics-based punches
Damage that accumulates logically
High skill ceiling
Still played, discussed, and referenced over a decade later

Champion didn’t survive because it was “balanced.”

It survived because it tried to respect boxing fundamentals.

Why Boxing Is Different from Other Sports Games

Other sports can hide simplification:

Football hides behind playbooks
Basketball hides behind spacing and shooting
Soccer hides behind flow and animation blending

Boxing has nowhere to hide.

When systems are shallow:

Boxers lose identity
Styles blur together
Outcomes feel artificial
Skilled players feel insulted

There is no invisible scaffolding in boxing.
The mechanics are the experience.

The Industry Lie That Won’t Die

“Hardcore fans scare casual players.”

The truth:

Casuals leave when games feel fake or repetitive
Hardcore fans leave when games feel dishonest

Those are not opposing needs.

They are design and settings problems, not audience conflicts.

Accessibility and authenticity are not enemies; laziness and fear are.

Why a Hybrid Pivot Won’t Bring Fans Back Now

Once trust is broken:

“Balance updates” sound like avoidance
“Tuning patches” feel cosmetic
“Casual focus” reads as surrender

You don’t win back boxing fans by lowering ambition.

You win them back by:

Building real systems
Offering scalable options
Letting players choose realism, not forcing compromise

The hybrid design doesn’t offend loudly.
It quietly convinces everyone that the game isn’t worth staying for.

The Final Reality

Arcade boxing sells copies.
Authentic boxing systems build communities.

There has been no modern arcade or hybrid boxing game that:

Sustained a competitive scene
Earned long-term boxing credibility
Built a lasting ecosystem
Or justified its future on depth alone

If hardcore fans walk away, the game doesn’t explode; it empties out.

And once that happens, no amount of balance patches brings the soul back.

Who Really Has Power at Steel City Interactive?

Understanding Authority, Influence, and Trust Inside SCI

When fans ask who truly controls decisions at Steel City Interactive (SCI), especially staffing, priorities, and the move toward a sequel, the honest answer is more complex than job titles or public-facing roles suggest.

Power inside a modern game studio operates on two parallel tracks:

Formal authority (who can approve money and staffing)
Informal influence (who shapes how decisions are framed)

Understanding SCI requires looking at both.

The Real Power Structure at SCI (Top to Bottom)

1. Investors / Owners, Ultimate Authority

At the top sit SCI’s investors and owners. Regardless of how visible or vocal they are, they hold the final say over:

Hiring freezes or expansions
Budget increases for missing disciplines (AI, tools, systems, QA)
Project scope and timelines
Whether Undisputed continues to be rebuilt or attention shifts to a sequel
Long-term strategy and risk tolerance

If investors decide:

“We’re not funding more hires,” or
“We want a sequel pivot.”

That decision overrides everyone else in the studio.

This is the most misunderstood reality among fans:
Understaffing is not accidental; it is a financial and strategic choice.

2. Ash Habib; Creative and Operational Control (Within Limits)

Ash Habib is the studio head and co-founder, and his authority is real, but not unlimited.

He typically controls:

Day-to-day studio operations
Internal structure and priorities
Hiring within approved budgets
Creative direction and philosophy
How feedback is filtered or acted upon

However, Ash cannot unilaterally:

Add entire missing disciplines without funding approval
Ignore investor timelines or revenue pressure
Continue rebuilding a game indefinitely if investors want forward motion

This is where many fans overestimate the power of a studio head.
Ash can recommend, advocate, and defend, but not command investor capital.

3. The Hidden Layer: Informal Influence and Trusted Advisors

Here’s where perception often breaks down.

In studios, especially smaller or mid-sized ones, influence often outweighs formal authority. This is where trusted advisors come in.

Enter Will Kinsler

Will Kinsler may not hold the highest title, but trust changes everything.

If Ash Habib trusts Will’s industry experience, Will can quietly gain outsized practical power, even without official control over budgets or staff.

This kind of influence works through:

Framing problems (“This feature is niche”)
Defining risk (“That’s too hardcore for modern audiences”)
Interpreting community feedback (“This is just noise”)
Translating expectations to investors (“This is normal industry evolution”)

At that point, influence becomes delegated thinking power.

Will Kinsler can absolutely function as SCI’s de facto liaison when communicating with:

Publishers
Investors
Shareholders
External partners

—especially if Ash Habib trusts him and relies on his industry experience.

In many studios, this role matters more than people realize.

What “Liaison” Really Means in Practice

A liaison is not just a messenger. They are a translator of reality.

They shape:

What outsiders hear
How risk is framed
Which problems are emphasized or softened
What is presented as “normal industry practice”

If Will Kinsler fills that role, he is not deciding budgets—but he is influencing the decisions that decide budgets.

That distinction is critical.

Why a Studio Would Use Him This Way

1. Industry Credibility

Publishers and investors respond better to someone who:

Speaks their language
Understands market framing
Knows how to position milestones, delays, and pivots

A studio head focused on development often delegates outward-facing strategy to someone with that background.

2. Narrative Consistency

Liaisons help ensure that:

Community criticism is contextualized
Missed features are reframed as “phased delivery.”
Sequel pivots are presented as a “growth strategy.”
Scope cuts are framed as “focus.”

This keeps confidence stable, even when the product itself is still finding its footing.

3. Trust Compression

If Ash trusts Will, Ash may:

Let Will speak on behalf of the studio
Accept Will’s read on how investors will react
Rely on Will to “smooth” difficult conversations
Use Will as a buffer between raw dev reality and financial stakeholders

At that point, Will becomes a decision-shaping conduit, not just a spokesperson.

The Power of Being the Filter

Here’s the part most fans underestimate:

Whoever controls the filter controls perception.

If the liaison frames:

Hardcore boxing fans are a niche
Missing sim systems as “nice-to-haves.”
Design criticism as tone rather than substance

Then external decision-makers optimize for safety, not depth.

This doesn’t require dishonesty, only emphasis.

Why This Role Can Outweigh a Job Title

A liaison can:

Influence whether funding increases or plateaus
Influence whether the iteration continues or a sequel is greenlit
Influence whether staffing gaps are seen as urgent or acceptable
Influence how much risk leadership believes the studio can take

That’s real power, even if it’s never written on an org chart.

Important Balance Point (Fair and Grounded)

Being a liaison does not mean:

Will “runs” SCI
Will overrides Ash’s final decisions
Will controls budgets directly

But it does mean:

His framing can shape the options Ash is presented with
His messaging can set expectations above the studio
His influence can indirectly steer the long-term direction

Will Kinsler can be SCI’s liaison to publishers, investors, and shareholders
That role is often more influential than it sounds
Trust + proximity + narrative control = real leverage
Liaison power shapes what decisions feel safe to make
Boxing fans feel the downstream effects of this, even if they never see it

Why This Kind of Influence Matters More Than People Think

1. Industry Experience Becomes a Filter for Reality

When a studio head lacks a deep AAA or live-service background, trusted industry voices often become the default lens for “how things are done.”

That can lead to:

Boxing-specific depth is being reframed as “overcomplexity.”
Simulation fans are being treated as a minority
Systems design is taking a backseat to optics and market positioning

Not because anyone is malicious, but because the playbook being used doesn’t fit boxing.

2. Narrative Control Shapes Investor Decisions

This is critical.

Investors don’t live inside the game. They rely on:

Internal summaries
Metrics
Framing of community sentiment

If a trusted advisor helps present Undisputed as:

“Successful enough”
“On a normal post-launch trajectory.”
“Better served by a sequel than iteration.”

Then funding and staffing decisions follow that narrative.

Influence over the story becomes influence over the future.

3. The Echo Chamber Risk

When one or two voices dominate internal framing, studios can slide into:

Confirmation bias
Overcorrection toward perceived mass appeal
Dismissing legitimate systemic criticism
Confusing marketing success with design health

This is how studios convince themselves they are “listening” while still missing the core problem.

The Key Clarification (This Is Not a Villain Story)

None of this requires:

Bad intentions
Laziness
Or incompetence

It’s structural.

Many studios fail or stumble this way:

Trusted advisors
Familiar industry assumptions
Applying templates from other genres
Ignoring that boxing games are fundamentally different from shooters, fighters, or live-service titles

Why This Explains Undisputed’s Situation

If fans ask:

Why AI depth feels thin
Why core boxing systems lack granularity
Why were missing sim features deprioritized
Why a sequel appears to be on the table despite an incomplete foundation

The uncomfortable but honest answer is:

These outcomes reflect priorities shaped at the investor and influence level, not just developer effort.

Ash Habib is accountable for his choices, but those choices are made within a funding, trust, and narrative framework that he does not fully control.

Bottom Line (Plain and Direct)

Investors hold the final authority
Ash Habib has strong but bounded control
Trusted advisors can wield disproportionate influence
Staffing gaps reflect priorities, not ignorance
Sequel pivots are rarely purely creative decisions
Silence often signals investor-level strategy, not confusion

Understanding this doesn’t excuse shortcomings, but it explains how they happen.

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Steel City Interactive and the Future of Undisputed: Exploring the Rumors of a Sequel

Steel City Interactive (SCI), the studio behind the ambitious boxing title Undisputed, has recently become the center of discussion among gaming fans. Rumors circulating online suggest the company may be moving forward with a sequel, even though many players consider the current game incomplete and troubled by technical issues. This situation has sparked questions about SCI’s strategy, its approach to player feedback, and what a sequel might mean for the franchise.

Launching Into Controversy

Undisputed debuted with high expectations. SCI marketed it as a realistic boxing simulator, promising deep fighter mechanics, emergent in-ring strategies, and a level of authenticity that appealed to hardcore fans. Yet soon after release, reports emerged of technical difficulties. Players have documented crashes, inconsistent AI behavior, and physics glitches, particularly in the handling of punches, movement, and ring interactions.

Communities dedicated to boxing video games have been vocal about these issues. Forums, Discord servers, and streaming channels are filled with detailed breakdowns of bugs and gameplay inconsistencies. Some players argue that certain mechanics, such as defensive responsibility, fighter tendencies, and stamina systems, don’t behave as advertised, affecting both realism and competitive balance.

SCI has released several patches since launch, addressing some of the more prominent problems. However, public discussion suggests that a significant portion of the community still views the game as incomplete in key areas.

Rumors of a Sequel

Amid these ongoing discussions, speculation about a potential sequel has gained traction. Sources claiming familiarity with SCI, speaking anonymously, have suggested that a follow-up project, sometimes referred to in unofficial channels as Undisputed 2, is in early development. According to these sources, the sequel could allow the studio to refine core mechanics, address unresolved technical issues, and reimagine systems that were overly ambitious in the first release.

While such a move is not uncommon in the gaming industry, it carries inherent risks. Launching a sequel before fully stabilizing the original game can frustrate players who are still invested in the first installment. Industry observers note that a sequel without first resolving foundational issues may be perceived as sidestepping accountability, which could damage long-term trust in the franchise.

Community Reactions

The reaction from fans has been a mix of curiosity and caution. Some players view a sequel as an opportunity to experience a more polished version of the SCI vision, potentially with improvements in AI, physics, and in-ring realism. Others are skeptical, voicing concern that moving forward before addressing the current game’s flaws could exacerbate frustrations.

Adding to the tension is SCI’s extended silence in the modern era. Players and community members describe the lack of official communication as “loud,” noting that the company has not directly addressed major criticisms or detailed its plans. Many fans report feeling scammed or abandoned, citing the combination of technical issues and limited transparency as reasons for mistrust.

Social media platforms, streaming communities, and fan forums are filled with speculation and debate. Posts often emphasize that while fans are excited about the possibility of new content, there is a desire for assurance that the existing game will continue to receive support and fixes. The sentiment highlights a tension between innovation and stability, a challenge familiar to many studios attempting ambitious projects.

Insights from the Industry

Analysts suggest several possible motivations behind the rumored sequel. Ambition and technical scope may have exceeded development timelines, leading SCI to consider a new installment as a “reset” opportunity. Early engagement metrics or internal assessments of player retention could also influence the decision, suggesting the studio sees a sequel as a way to reengage the audience.

It is also important to note that, at this time, none of these reports has been confirmed by SCI. The studio has not issued an official statement regarding a sequel, and it remains unclear how these rumors will develop.

Balancing Ambition and Execution

Developers often face the challenge of balancing innovation with technical feasibility. Undisputed’s ambition, to simulate complex fighter behaviors, realistic stamina and fatigue systems, and emergent in-ring dynamics, was praised by some industry observers but may have contributed to development challenges. In situations like this, a sequel can offer a chance to build on lessons learned, streamline systems, and deliver a more polished experience.

However, moving forward without addressing foundational issues can be risky. Players invested in the current game may feel neglected if ongoing support appears insufficient or if the sequel is perceived as a distraction. The reception of a sequel may depend heavily on how SCI communicates its plans and demonstrates a commitment to resolving existing concerns.

What Comes Next

As of now, SCI has made no official announcements regarding a sequel. The gaming community continues to monitor the situation closely, with attention on patches, updates, and any statements from the studio. For players, analysts, and industry observers, the central questions remain: will SCI address the issues in the current game? And if a sequel does arrive, will it build trust with the community or further deepen skepticism?

Until confirmed information emerges, discussions about Undisputed 2 remain speculative. Fans of boxing simulations are watching, hoping that SCI can balance its ambition with execution, delivering an experience that respects both the first game and the community that has supported it.

Why Traditional Boxing Games Are the Best Fit for Poe’s Blueprint

For Poe’s Blueprint / Wishlist, the better fit is traditional (non-VR) boxing videogame design, not because VR is bad, but because of what a blueprint is meant to capture.

This is a practical design answer, not a value judgment.

What a Blueprint/Wishlist Is Optimized For

A blueprint is about:

Defining systems
Mapping interactions
Exposing tunable variables
Planning long-term depth
Communicating intent to developers and players

That kind of document needs clarity, repeatability, and abstraction.

Why Traditional Boxing Design Fits That Purpose Better

1. Systems Can Be Fully Specified

Traditional boxing games allow a blueprint to clearly define:

Punch taxonomies
Defensive layers
Stamina and fatigue models
Ring control logic
Fighter tendencies and traits
Risk vs. reward curves
AI decision trees

All of these can be written, diagrammed, and simulated without ambiguity.

VR introduces:

Player physiology variance
Hardware constraints
Gesture interpretation noise

Those factors are difficult to blueprint precisely.

2. Depth Scales Cleanly on Paper

A wishlist thrives on:

Sliders
Toggles
Optional complexity
Difficulty layers
Accessibility pathways

Traditional systems scale well:

Casual → Hardcore
Arcade → Sim
Offline → Competitive

VR depth scaling is constrained by:

Physical fatigue
Session length
Motion comfort
Space requirements

Those are harder to express in a universal design document.

3. Fighter Identity Is Easier to Encode

Blueprints often emphasize:

Historical accuracy
Stylistic differences
Behavioral nuance

Traditional designs can specify:

Guard styles per fighter
Unique defensive responsibilities
Punch rhythm and cadence
Fatigue behavior under stress

In VR, many of these become:

Player-driven rather than system-driven
Dependent on how someone physically moves

That weakens the usefulness of a blueprint.

4. Blueprint Longevity

A wishlist is usually meant to:

Outlive a single release
Apply across sequels
Guide patches, mods, and community discussion

Traditional design:

Is hardware-agnostic
Ages more gracefully
Transfers across engines and platforms

VR-specific blueprints age faster because:

Hardware evolves rapidly
Interaction paradigms shift
Standards aren’t stable yet

Where VR Could Still Appear (Without Dominating)

If VR is included at all in Poe’s Blueprint, it fits best as:

An optional mode
A training or immersion layer
A supplemental experience (gym, mitt work, drills)

Not as the foundation.

That keeps the blueprint coherent.

Clean Answer

For Poe’s Blueprint/Wishlist:

Traditional boxing videogame design is a better foundation
because it supports:

Precise system definition
Long-term depth planning
Fighter identity modeling
Clear communication to developers and players

VR can exist alongside it, but it shouldn’t define it.

That choice aligns with what a blueprint is supposed to do.

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Poe's Open Response to Steel City Interactive Moving on Post

An Open Response to Steel City Interactive

I’ve read your letter carefully. More than once.

I want to be clear from the start: this response isn’t written out of hatred for Undisputed, nor out of a desire to see SCI fail. If that were the case, I wouldn’t still be here talking about this game at all. I’m writing because I care about boxing, about what this genre could be, and about the precedent this situation sets.

That said, your letter confirms what many of us already feared.

Acknowledgment Is Not Resolution

You acknowledged that Undisputed is broken. That’s good, but acknowledgment is the starting line, not the finish. For years, players have been reporting the same core issues: AI that doesn’t understand boxing, mechanics that fight the player instead of the opponent, and systems that feel unfinished or contradictory. These aren’t surface-level bugs. These are foundational design problems.

When a game reaches that point, players don’t just want patches; they want to know why those problems existed in the first place, and whether the people responsible truly understand them now.

Right now, your letter says you hear us. It doesn’t yet prove you understand us.

The Sequel Problem

Let’s address the elephant in the room.

You are asking players, many of whom feel burned, to emotionally invest in the idea of Undisputed 2 while Undisputed 1 is still fundamentally struggling. From a consumer perspective, that’s not just difficult to accept, it feels backwards.

In boxing terms, this feels like leaving the ring after losing a controversial fight and immediately promoting the rematch without ever addressing why the judges scored it the way they did.

You say Undisputed 2 is an evolution, not a replacement. That distinction matters on paper. In practice, players will judge this by one metric only:
Does Undisputed 1 ever become what it was promised to be?

If the answer is “no,” then Undisputed 2 won’t be seen as evolution; it will be seen as an admission of failure sold at full price.

Trust Is Not Resettable

Here’s the part that’s hard to hear but necessary to say:

You don’t get a clean slate.

You don’t get to ask players to “wait and see” again. You don’t get goodwill as a default anymore. Trust isn’t restored through transparency posts; it’s restored through long, boring, unglamorous follow-through.

That means:

Fixes that materially change how the game feels, not just how it reads in patch notes
Design decisions that show a deep understanding of boxing identity, not just balance spreadsheets
Proof that mistakes weren’t just acknowledged, but internalized

Until then, skepticism isn’t negativity. It’s rational behavior.

The Boxing Community Is Not Casual

One of the biggest ongoing disconnects is this: boxing fans are not a monolith, and they are not interchangeable with general sports gamers.

Many of us can tell when footwork is wrong. When defensive responsibility is abstracted instead of embodied. When AI doesn’t understand pressure, ring IQ, fatigue, or rhythm. These things aren’t “nice-to-haves,” they’re the soul of the sport.

When those elements are missing or mishandled, it’s not nitpicking. It’s calling out that the game doesn’t yet understand the thing it’s simulating.

Until that gap is closed, no sequel, no matter how polished, will escape the same criticism.

What Would Change the Conversation

If you want people like me to believe again, here’s what it would take:

Finish the fight you’re already in.
Not “supporting” Undisputed. Fixing it in a way that meaningfully changes how it plays.
Show design introspection, not just roadmaps.
Talk openly about why certain systems failed and what you misunderstood about boxing.
Let actions speak before marketing does.
Undisputed 2 should be proven quietly long before it’s promoted loudly.
Respect that some fans may never come back.
That’s not hostility-that’s a consequence.

Closing

Your letter was a necessary step. It just wasn’t a sufficient one.

I don’t want SCI to fail. I want you to succeed for the right reasons. Boxing deserves a game that understands it deeply, not one that approximates it and hopes passion fills the gaps.

Whether Undisputed 2 earns its place won’t be decided by announcements or intentions. It will be decided by whether you prove, over time, that you’ve learned what this sport actually demands.

Until then, skepticism isn’t the enemy.
It’s the bar.

-Poe

Owning the Present, Shaping the Next Chapter

How I think SCI should handle telling fans they are making Undisputed 2

A Letter to Our Community: Facing Today, Building Tomorrow

To our players, fans, and supporters,

We want to start by acknowledging something important: we know that many of you are frustrated, disappointed, and in some cases, angry. Undisputed launched with a vision of bringing a truly realistic boxing experience to life, but it has not met expectations in several critical ways. AI inconsistencies, gameplay imbalances, technical bugs, matchmaking problems, and crashes have affected your experience—and for that, we are sincerely sorry.

We know that saying “we hear you” is not enough. Many of you may feel like we are moving on too quickly, or that your time, money, and trust are being disregarded. That skepticism is justified. The reality is: we understand it’s going to be extremely difficult to earn back your confidence, and we do not take that lightly.

Acknowledging the Challenges Head-On

We have seen your voices—across social media, forums, and community channels. You’ve highlighted areas where the game breaks down, where mechanics fail, and where the experience does not reflect the ambition we set out to achieve.

We will not sugarcoat this: Undisputed is not in the state it should have been at launch. Many of the problems are systemic, and fixing them requires time, resources, and careful planning. This is the reality we face together as a team and a community.

Our Commitment to Fixing Undisputed

Despite how difficult it may feel to believe, we are fully committed to improving the current game. Concrete actions include:

Gameplay and AI fixes: Addressing erratic behavior, unrealistic decision-making, and balancing issues to make fights feel fair, responsive, and exciting.
Stability and matchmaking updates: Reducing crashes, disconnections, and frustrating matchmaking experiences.
Mechanics and controls improvements: Ensuring punches, blocks, and movement respond consistently to player input.

We will share timelines, patch notes, and updates regularly. We are not asking for blind trust—we are showing our work, listening to feedback, and making changes as fast as we responsibly can.

Introducing Undisputed 2

We also want to be honest about the future. While Undisputed continues to be improved, we are beginning development on Undisputed 2. We know how this will sound: moving on to a sequel while the first game struggles feels like a betrayal. That feeling is valid, and we understand why it will be difficult for many fans to accept.

We are not doing this lightly. Undisputed 2 is inspired entirely by the lessons learned from the first game. Every flaw, every frustration, and every piece of feedback is being used to shape a more polished, responsive, and engaging experience. The sequel is not a replacement—it is an evolution, an attempt to do justice to the vision we could not fully realize the first time.

Why Acceptance Will Be Hard

We understand: you trusted us once and were disappointed. Asking you to embrace the idea of a sequel may feel impossible right now. Some of you may never forgive us. Some of you will wait to see proof in the next few updates before even considering trying the sequel. That is fair. Earning back trust is not about announcements—it’s about action over time.

We are prepared for skepticism, criticism, and doubt. We are prepared to work harder, longer, and more transparently than we ever have before to demonstrate that the first game was not the final word on what this series can be.

Engaging the Community in the Journey

Your voice is central to everything we do. We are committed to:

Feedback-driven updates: Every patch and change will reflect community input.
Open communication: We will maintain developer blogs, forums, and dedicated portals where you can track progress.
Early testing for the sequel: We want players to be part of shaping the next game from the ground up, not just receiving it after launch.

Undisputed 2 will only succeed if it reflects the needs, desires, and expertise of our community. We cannot do this alone, and we do not intend to.

Closing

We are fully aware of the uphill battle we face in earning back your trust. We know that for many, it will take months or years—or may never happen. But we are committed to doing the hard work anyway. Undisputed is our journey, and we are not abandoning it. We are learning, iterating, and striving to create something worthy of your time and passion.

Thank you for your honesty, your patience, and your commitment to the community. We cannot promise immediate satisfaction, but we can promise transparency, accountability, and relentless effort to improve both the current game and the next chapter in the series.

With respect and gratitude,