I think they have to give it, at least, an honorable mention. The game was too big for them to get into the goty and say "well, nothing of note was released"...

I have no problem with them making a "Best unfinished game" to accommodate it, or it competing with the other games. In fact, given the amount of play and how beloved it is, I think it has a decent shot at being goty.

We should consider that the categories are not hard set, written in stone, inmutable thing. They had a "Best Overwatch character" category last year, and it was more contended than some others.

I'm in the boat of leave unfinished games out of the GOTY discussion.

The duders are probably going to mention it in some way or another, but the GOTY is about a competition of finished, playable games. Don't forget some machines (PCs) still have a hard time running that game, and from what I experienced its still has a lot of bugs to fix. If it had vaulting I would consider it xD.

Having said that, GOTY discussions are usually what the GiantBomb Crew wants to discuss this year, they might just have a category for unfinished games, but if there was one, PUBG would win it, I'm sure.

1. They are taking money for the game itself.

2. They have charged for microtransactions.

3. The had an invitational for a tournament at a major gaming convention.

The game is basically out, even if it is in early access. Saying "its early access" is merely a way for developers now to release a game and protect it from bad reviews upfront. I like PUBG and think it should be up for review and GotY. Also, let's be honest...the final product isn't going to differ that much from what the game is now outside of some (much needed) polish.

Frankly---perhaps other than BotW---it's the only game everyone on staff has played to some degree. It's their GOTY regardless of official release or not.

It has to be considered , not because of PUBG's quality but on the way the entire PUBG story has consumed a huge chunk of gaming's consciousness this year and continues to be one of 2017's biggest ongoing news stories.

@sammo21: just because they are taking money for it isn't really a strong argument. Plenty of trash, unfinished games on Steam are readily purchasable and people spend money on them. If PUBG is up for GOTY then you can't rule out any other game in the future that is unfinished and people are having fun with. It essentially starts to blur the lines between what is officially out for review and what is a work in progress. Star Citizen is basically out then, or that metroidvania game that Jason keeps playing and I'm waiting to get finished.

We NEED hard distinctions otherwise all labels become meaningless.

@humanity: Except the staff have said numerous times over the years things to the effect of, "yo, you can pay money for this game and play it right now, criticism is valid" when discussing things like busted ass Early Access games.

So if criticism of busted Early Access games is valid if they're broken...why can't the opposite also be the case? Furthermore, if a game, regardless of how it is labeled, is the most fun they've had in a game in a given year...why shouldn't it be considered? Especially given that a developer can literally make zero changes to a game and changes it from Early Access to Full Release, the label itself is completely arbitrary.

What difference does it really make? If a game is great, it's great.

Ok, so, some games will conceivably never be eligible for GotY, like Overwatch. Other games will only be eligible for GotY many years down the line, like Destiny. The only games that might end up being eligible for GotY the year they came out would end up being stuff like Uncharted.

The very concept of a "finished" game is largely going away, with a few notable exceptions. There is no meaningful difference between an Early Access game getting monthly updates prior to "release" and a "finished" game getting monthly updates post "release".

A good game is a good game is a good game.

They could have called Hitman "Early Access" rather than "Episodic", it would still have been GotY worthy. Mario Maker could have been released in Early Access, one tileset at a time, it would still have been GotY worthy. Skyrim was released in a worse state than a lot of Early Access games, but it was still GotY worthy.

@mike: Because at the same time the staff has also said numerous times over the years that if it's not officially out then it's not up for GOTY. They've mentioned a few times in recent Bombcasts that maybe they will re-evaluate how they look at that stuff in the "modern gaming space" we find ourselves in, but Jeff has been pretty adamant about the differentiation for years now.

They can criticize it all they want, and in fact it has never stopped them in the past, but it's important to recognize that yo this game isn't 100% finished, and it will continue changing for better and worse and you, as a paying customer should be aware of that. Not everyone wants to pay for a game that is in constant flux, especially on PC when the game might run fine on your setup or it might run like total garbage. The Early Access label basically gives games a free pass on bugs and shitty technical issues because they're still "working on it" unlike a full release where the game should work 100% and there is much more pressure on the developer to patch it if it's not working correctly. Unless you're Bethesda of course then you don't care because the modding community will fix it for you for free.

It's awesome when a game is great even in Early Access, it's not as awesome when the game isn't all that great and thats why it's important to have that distinction in place, so people know they might be potentially stepping into a hot mess that may or may not ever get fixed up.

@humanity: but why disallow all Early Access games because some are busted? Some aren't, and there are many fully released games that are in worse shape than EA games, and those may never get fixed either. My point is it the label itself is completely arbitrary, which it is, then what difference does it make?

It seems silly that the sole criteria for GOTY eligibility is a label which the developer can change in an instant with no update to the game if they wanted to.

@bladeofcreation: I don’t think making the content Premium or having the dev on the stream (that logic should be applied to all games and if you did it would make a lot of other games “weird” to include in GotY.

@burncoat: Why would they need to be more specific than “they liked it more?” That’s how all games are treated on GotY. If the crew can intuitively state that a release was major, it’s worthy of being discussed. PUBG absolutely fits that, and is a game they all very much like. Of course it has to receive criticism, but the fact is it is a released product. The version number may not be 1.0 but hey are asking for money for a product. Saying it isn’t worthy of looking at seems bizarre because it is a thing any consumer can pay money for and experience. Should it win? Who knows. But I absolutely think it should be discussed. Not doing so would ignore such an influential release over an arbitrary rule that came about during a very different time and with a very different intent than keeping a game like PUBG out of the running.

I expect to see it discussed and all that but don’t think it will get the number one spot unless major concerns about it are addressed.

The system has recently changed!

Anyway - the most valid reason I can think of to keep Early Access games off the list

By saying a game has to have been released officially in a 1.00 capacity in a year to be valid for that year means that it's only valid for that year. If you let PUBG be valid this year as a GOTY contender and then it's officially released next year and through some fluke nothing spectacular comes out between now and 2018 that dethrones it from GBs top spot, then is it allowed be next years GOTY too? Or if it comes out next year but somehow gets even bigger and better.

If that was the case, then any game should be allowed be the game of the year for that person, regardless of how long it's been out. Brad should be allowed blurt out Dota 2 as an actual contender every year that he enjoyed it more than any other game (he did this on his personal list, which is fine).

@liquiddragon: hat was a different industry AND a different site, AND the argument was not pressed because Minecraft wouldn’t have gone anywhere regardless of how the debate settled in the end.

@humanity: the only important distinction is if the crew felt it was an important and impactful release. That they easily do in the first few rounds of nomination and elimination. There are just as many shit games coming to steam outside of early access, so that logic just doesn’t make sense to me. They will know what is important to them and what isn’t because it’s the crew’s GotY and not Steam’s GotY. If they didn’t play it, it isn’t considered. If they didn’t like it, it isn’t nominated. If it was kind of liked but no one is passionate about it, it will be eliminated. The same process works either way.

Maybe the line has to be redrawn but I think they just gotta clearly establish where that line is atm. There shouldn't be exceptions and if they want to open the floodgates, that's cool with me, but I'm sure there are a lot of great early access games to consider, which makes their job harder. I understand the status can be abused but I'm sure there are developers doing it the right way and having a more open relationship with their users who'd want to be judged when they feel the game's finished. Also, no more Unfinished if that happens.

Why does a game being their favorite thing they played that year have to be mutually exclusive with doing an Unfinished?

If the full version isn't out before december, then the GOTY discussions will start of with the crew going back on the previous stance of "unfinished games can't be considered for GOTY". Alex already made it clear he was for this.

So yeah it'll be included and will have a very good chance to win overall GOTY. It's PUBG or Zelda and PUBG will be more recent in their memory and doesn't have Jeff hating on it.

@mike: How is it arbitrary? One game is released, gets a patch or two and is done, the other gets continuously tweaked and is not feature complete with no clear ETA on when that will happen. Uncharted 4 didn't release with just the first chapter and a promise that they are working on the other ones but no date when they will deliver. Call of Duty doesn't launch with a single multiplayer map, so on and so forth.

PUBG is not a finished game. People enjoy it but it's still a janky mess in a lot of ways. IF this game seriously wouldn't change all that much from now until 1.00 then that would be incredibly disappointing.

Yeah, I respect their (maybe specifically Jeff's) stance on hard-and-fast rules in direct contrast to the senselessness of the GOTY shows; it helps gamify the whole ordeal. I hope they maintain the rules, and so I hope PUBG doesn't force their hand in changing their perspective on the difference between a pre-release and a released game, no matter how much they love it.

It's arbitrary because a developer can, at any time, state that their game is out of Early Access. "Full Release" can mean different things to different developers. It is 100% arbitrary. Developers can also choose to skip Early Access and just release their game in a buggy or incomplete state and then patch it as time goes on. Functionally there is no difference, the only difference is the label.

That is fundamentally untrue for reasons I've stated above. An early access game is in flux, gets features added on, it's a moving train that is still being built while it's already on the tracks. A fully released game in a "1.00" state doesn't get new features added in like mounting animations or whatnot. Dishonored 2 got a few performance patches - it didn't get new powers, new animations, new lighting or new maps. It was a complete package that simply got a few tweaks to make it run better on a wider assortment of machines. That is not an arbitrary difference by any stretch of the imagination.

@humanity: That's not "fundamentally untrue" because not all Early Access games are the same. There have been plenty of EA games that went to full release after only some minor improvements and bug fixes.

At any rate, I'm finished with this conversation and it's completely irrelevant anyway because it's not up to us what they decide to do with Game of the Year. Have a nice day.

@mike: Well you stating that it's an absolutely superficial difference that bears no meaning is untrue but maybe we all have a different understanding of what Early Access is and isn't or what it should or shouldn't be.

It's the biggest game of the year, if it's thrown into the race this year it should be ineligible next year, besides that I have no problem with it being considered in the deliberations.

I think it should be on the list, they're all playing the game and are all really enjoying it. It shouldn't matter what the version number is.

I would say it should be considered at this time, but if it is it cannot be considered when "1.0" comes out. It's either now or then.

If you read the comment Freedom made it was not comparing the quality of Hitman or PUBG to Mario Party - it was comparing the amount of video content the site produced for them and making the point that some games for various reasons (such as multiplayer allowing more replay and variety of outcomes) lend themselves to making more watchable video content than others in direct response to your comment indicating if a game was bad they would not make more videos.

The point was most videos made does not equal best or favorite game or GOTY - it is almost absurd you replied without acknowledging the main point that was made.

@opusofthemagnum: What I meant by that was that it should not be included if it doesn't get a 1.0 release.

"games most likely to be featured in weekly videos"

Please Stop 2017: This thread.