No, they won't. Based on a search that I did just now, the game has not left Early Access. The GoTY talks will occur within the next few weeks. So unless the game officially leaves Early Access between now and when deliberations begin, it won't be getting on the Top 10 list. I'm not sure about other lists--have they ever considered Early Access games for best music, or best surprise, or anything like that?

What we WILL see, however, is an "official" policy change that lets Early Access games be considered next year.

This is all pretty much what Jeff himself has said.

Edit: I based my answer on whether or not they would consider it for the the Top 10, not any other awards.

Honestly think it would be pretty silly if they didn’t.

Yes, but I think they shouldn't. If it's not out when deliberations start, it shouldn't be eligible.

No. If they do it with PUBG, they'd have to retroactively do it with every early access game this year, and that's just too much. The rule is a good one - if it leaves early access in time, sure, consider it. But if not, PUBG shouldn't be shown any favoritism just because it's a great beta.

They could just do a top 4 and top 11 for catagories it features in and if it doesnt make release before the new year put a strikethrough.

Is it not coming out this year? I thought it was.

Why not? The awards represent a celebration of their best gaming experiences of 2017. Most of the crew seem to have had their fill of the game at this point and I don't foresee v1.0 doing much to change that. Very hard to imagine PUBG coming up again in the deliberations next year so it's now or never. "Saving" PUBG for a conversation 12 months from now due to a label just seems silly.

What's PUBG?

It just came to me. It's Battlegrounds. Never mind.

The policy is pointless because this is the year they all bought and played it. GOTY is about the game everyone played and enjoyed the most. "Early access" is just a label, you still pay for it and can play it. The practical difference to ordinarily released games that also get patches and updates is very small.

@kingbonesaw: It has always bothered me that they don't consider games that came out during the last few weeks of December for the next year's awards. Especially since I would swear that they have excluded things they played pre-release from one year's conversation because it wasn't out yet, then excluded it from the next year's conversation because it was out the previous year. It's a rare occurrence but it irks me.

Anyway, I think the very first time you could buy "pre-release" access to a video game with money, it should've been considered for awards. Reviews are mostly purchasing advice; if someone can buy it, I'd like the duder's advice. Games have been coming in half-done for a long time now (here's looking at you, Daggerfall) so it's pretty crazy to me that this is even a question. Maybe, maybe re-consider games for awards in later years if things improve significantly enough, but this is so rare that you mind as well just keep the "Old Game of the Year" category ready for them instead.

All this said, I think it will require a monumental effort from the team to budge Jeff on allowing PUBG. He seems pretty set on adhering to their standards this year, and I sincerely doubt PUBG will officially release in the next five weeks, let alone the next two weeks while they're recording GOTY stuff.

@redhotchilimist:

that then puts zero pressure on devs to say a game is actually finished in this case. would pubg be the same success it is today if it came out as is? we wont know. what we do know is that for some people the entire game is ruined due to cheating. i know not everyone has the experience but its a break that is exploitable. with the cloak of it being "in beta" they take less responsibility and can say its not done we can fix it out. its a slippery slope to recognize a game that is in early access because it is not supposed to be digital for pc only. this is not the entire vision the creators have according to them. until they are willing to recognize its a fully functional game they shouldnt in my opinion

Bluehole has been saying for months that they are committed to leaving Early Access before the end of the year, and that will probably be at the same time PUBG releases on Xbox One. That's on December 12th. Also, part of the 1.0 "full release" build was on the test servers last week.

Whether it's technically ready to leave Early Access or not is irrelevant. They have publicly committed to leaving Early Access and they're going to do it whether the game is "finished" or not.

That seems like a bad move, leaving Early Access no matter what. That's fine, though--if they leave Early Access before the GoTY deliberations start, I'm certain this game will make it onto the site's Top 10 list. I'm just not super convinced by what they say. Back in April, the game was "guaranteed" to be finished in six to seven months. In May, it was said that monetization wouldn't happen until the game left Early Access. I don't really see any reason to take the dev's word anymore.

We'll find out on December 12 for sure.

I do think the rest of my comment contextualized the first two sentences that you quoted.

I think PUBG could spontanously combust at this point and still be deserving of an award, because they played that game several hours every week on the site for like six months and even more on their off-time, most of them having a great time with it. Every game has issues. They didn't disqualify Bethesda or Obsidian games because they're buggy as all hell, or Dark Souls because of cheaters on PC, or Arkham Knight because the PC port was a nightmare. Destiny 1, first year, got on their GOTY list.

If anything, I think their mistake has been to not honor Minecraft, Terraria and Kerbal Space Program in the years they first played them. If GB's official list contains no PUBG this year, but most of their personal lists do because people can do whatever with them, I feel like they've messed up. The site GOTY list would no longer be representative of the people involved, because of some arbitrary rule they decided on years ago.

I think they will based on the fact that is expected to be 'released' on the 12th.

I think though, that they might verbally 'asterix' the game with the proviso that, if it isn't released officially in 2017, then it will be disqualified from their verdict, and the 11th place game will take its place, or runner-up in other categories.

Jeff has continually mentioned that they need to have a deep dive on the issue of Early Access games, and I think PUBG had enough love from most of the duders that this will be the one that pushes it into contention. The whole idea of what even is a 1.0 release will be something to be considered.

Hell, Brad put DOTA on his GOTY list every year for a while, so there has often been leniency with individual lists, I wouldn't be surprised to see this come into consideration for the site wide list.

The number of times I've heard Jeff talk about how increasingly meaningless the idea of a game's official 1.0 release has become etc, I do think they'll count it. They may have disqualified games in previous years for being in some sort of early access state, but I think this is the year to set a precedent.

I think there's a possibility they won't, but it's such an old mentality that I hope they shed this year.

Jeff has expressly said they won't make an exception for PUBG this year, but it may be what makes them change the rules going forward.

They will. GB was never that into formalities.

Considering they never did with past games it really wouldn't be fair. Just because an early access game that came out this year is really good, or you like it more than ones in the past, doesn't mean you can on the spot make exceptions all the sudden without coming across as flippant to some people. That said, they can do whatever they want; it's their list. I would just be a little disappointed if they followed through with bending the rules.

Like others have said, if nothing else it seems this will be the catalyst that changes the rules for next year and onward; which seems like the appropriate way to handle it.

Edit: I feel like so many people here are making very good arguments against the "early access ineligibility" clause. I agree with all of you; it's a thing that should be changed. Pugb is a great example of why it's broken and needless... which is why they should make the changes for next year. There is a question of consistency here.

Thankfully, this whole argument might become mute next month; when pubg will more than likely get an official release. I'm almost certain the devs are aware of this kind of discussion and are very keen on having it be a 2017 release; the year it hit big.

Edit 2: One other thought I have regarding this discussion: Okay, so let's say starting next year and onward an early access game releases and is therefore eligible for Goty discussion in that same calender year. Let's also say that the game has a good concept, but isn't really together (far less than the almost full game that Pubg is). Within that year it's not far along enough in development or interesting enough to be considered for the goty lists. Basically, it doesn't catch on. The following year it's been updated to be a more complete compelling release and becomes wildly popular; to a similar prestige that Pubg is. How is the situation handled then? This could open up problems in the future where the game in question is a huge conversation piece at the end of year, but because it debuted in "early access" the previous year, is no longer eligible for Goty lists.

You have to admit there'd be a similar outcry to the one we have now.

Honestly I have no idea if they will. They may look to the "industry staple" in regards to this and decide from there? If so, it seems like other outlets and even the casual "Game Awards" has PUBG as counting as a full release this year.

If PUBG gets declared to be eligible I'm pretty confident that it's going to win GOTY. The only person on staff who isn't high on it seemed to be Abby, and with it being a long running feature for much of the year that saw all of the staff engage in it? In the same vein of Hitman I just can't see this not taking GOTY if eligible.

They wouldn't judge an early access game if it was bad so surely the reverse it also true.

If they do make an exception it better be because it takes the top spot. I don't see the point otherwise.

Not that I actually want that to happen.

I would be completly insane if they ignored pubg. Change the rules if necessary

If it's for sale, it should be under consideration. If it's good enough in early access form now, it should be under consideration. If you've played it several times on stream for the best part of six months, it should be under consideration. If you're having this conversation, it should be under consideration.

@shindig: My thoughts exactly. It would be one thing if the game was somehow in "private beta", but this is a public release that pretty much anyone can just go on Steam and purchase. Also worth repeating is what does "early access" even mean in this day and age. I payed full price on launch for Wolfenstein 2 and had trouble not making the game crash every 10min to desktop. PUBG on the other hand has been janky at times but it's never crashed on me...

Also context is important I think. Does the game in it's current form stand on it's own and achieve what it sets out to do? I think when it comes to PUBG the answer is demonstrably yes.

While I haven't played it, isn't Dead Cells in a similar situation?

If it comes out this year sure though the definition of a released version is almost trivial now, i've played plenty of games which have released and are obviously "unfinished", i think we should take each game on a case by case basis, and in this case PUBG's strong launch and explosive popularity have put it ahead of most Early Access titles. A lot of people have already played as much PUBG as they're going to, they might hop in to check out future updates but for the most part all of my friends have stopped playing it now.
I agree that reviews for "unfinished" games shouldn't be a testament to the final quality of the game, but if PUBG continues to be popular it will receive a lot more updates after version 1, unless we're planning to review its content updates as if they were expansions, a review and GOTY consideration this year would encompass the experience millions of people have had and will remember, though i'm not against adding a * next to it due to its unique position.

@cikame: But why do we need to get so hung up on the phrase "early-access"? Like all it is, is a term created by Valve (I think they where the ones to use that exact phrase first) to allow developers to release games that the developers don't deem to be "done" so that they can continue to develop it with the help of a community.
Early-Access is NOT DIRECTLY related to the quality, polish or fun of a piece of software, so to me, it's really arbitrary. I would love to hear the gb crews reasoning for whichever way they decide to go though!
Whatever else might be true, in 2017 videogames have been very weird and very cool.

They will have to give it something, but It wont be a main award eligible. probably a good like the PUBG Memorial award for Early Access TM. This time next year when it is out the hype will be gone and it would be weird to give it something then. It would be a shame to not recognise it somehow given how much mileage they got out of it in 2017.

I don't think they will declare it eligible, but I hope they will. And I say this as someone who has never and will never play PUBG (I'm a Destiny 2 kinda guy). It deserves to be site GOTY.

In general the early access rule should be scrapped. Early access is largely a tool to help indie developers survive long enough to finish their game. And since the site GOTY is basically "our favorite games we played this year", it's silly to have PUBG ineligible the year the gang plays it, but eligible some other year when they don't.

If its released in time yes and if it isn't maybe.

PUBG should launch as a Game of the Year edition.

I always thought the distinction was silly. If they are charging customers money for a playable product, then why not treat it like any other game? I understand it’s not a finished product, but what does it really matter for the consumer who paid for it?

I feel like even if they did, the overall perception of that game and it's development has soured enough to mute any good will it had. Could be entirely wrong, just how things feel to me at the moment.

There's also so many God damn great games this year, that going out of their way to change the rules in favor 1 game seems a little silly.

Have they even played it with the new 1.0 stuff though? What if those drastically change the game but they still judge the old version of it? Patches making the game worse has happened before.

I don't know why it would be such a big deal if it was eligible. Maybe I've missed it, but has there been dozens of early access games in the past few years that would've definitely placed on their top-10 list if the rule hadn't existed? This year doesn't have any early access games besides PUBG and Dead Cells that I recall them raving about either.

I guess people assume that the 1.0 version will switch it's genre to a MOBA/racing game/city building simulator and be a drastically different game, so it wouldn't be fair to award it.

It's important because in general most indie teams are releasing early playable versions of their games in an alpha or beta condition, they want user feedback and they need the funds to help finish their projects, the Early Access label does a good job of informing people of the unfinished nature of these releases. The reason i suggest we look at each game case by case is because PUBG had such a strong start it doesn't necessarily fit into the same "Early Access" category any more, it's bigger than some of the biggest titles out there now, so while it is still technically an early and unfinished product i think its unique position and stable condition warrants different treatment.

If they can't find 10 games better than PUBG this year, they have a f*cking problem.

I don't get saying "it's not out yet". Anyone can exchange money for the product. For all intents and purposes it is out. The only distinction is that we know it will continue being updated--but we know that's true about a lot of officially released games too.

I think so long as they no longer consider it after this year than I think they can. Plus PUBG feels like a weird exception. When I first heard this idea I thought it would be kinda shitty but in reality I don't think that this game will be as impact-full to GB as it was this year. So if they don't consider it, then next year it might not even make a blip on their radar because the PUBG time for them has come and gone. In that case it kinda gets screwed out of GOTY (at least in GB) because it was early access.

If this was another game that was really early access and felt half finished, I think it be weird to have those talks.

If the game doesn't leave early access, I hope they won't declare it eligible for the main Top 10. But they should be free to put it on their personal lists.

It's like Jeff as said multiple times before, they shouldn't suddenly change their rules just because it happens that this year there was an early access game they enjoyed. If anything, they should decide if early access games would be acceptable for consideration moving forward. Breaking the rules just because it's convenient doesn't seem correct.

However, I'm totally fine if they give it a silly recognition, to make it up for not changing the rule yet. Like "Top 10 GOTY presented by PUBG" or something better.

I think they will have two lists. They don't post the final site list until the last day of GOTY which usually right around new year. If PUBG leaves early access then they post the list it's on, if not then they post the other list.

As far as considering Early Access titles I think the current rule is solid. As others have pointed out, Early Access gives developers leeway. Imagine if No Man's Sky had launched in Early Access last year and then went 1.0 with the Atlas Rising patch. The entire narrative around that game would change. I still think there is merit to waiting until the developer says a game is "out" before judging it.

Why wouldn't they? The game was complete enough to be played since the release on steam. It is THE biggest phenonemon on PC since a long time. Not recognising PUBG in this GOTY would be a mistake.

If they dont include this year it surely it will do worse next year as they have already had the honeymoon period with it.

I think they should, I voted yes. There is chance game actually ends up with release date in december. The question would imply that game will make top 10 at some point. So if its not this year would it be next year? If its next year do you have to include all time spent in 2017 with game? It kind of sounds like many of Gb staff have fallen off game since chicken dinner. Lets make assumption game finishes 3rd in top ten this year. If they wait till next year and never really come back to game I could see it finishing 10th next year, with a "that game was great last year" comment. For this reason I would rather have it on this years list, cause I can't imagine it being higher next year.

Absolutely. They will break their previous rules for this. Possibly nullify them. I have zero doubt.

@df: I think there’s a good chance that if they allowed PUBG in, it would be their #1