Man there is so much salt everywhere, as some here already pointed out.

When you look at the X1 version of PuB, it looks rather crap and runs like crap, but even so, the PC version isn't 100% the same either, so we could easily say that it made it's way to the awards based on how the PC version ran and how popular it was.

Look at Nier, that game was popular on PS4, yet the PC port was crap, just like how the PC version of PuB runs and looks better than the X1 version (even though I think the design is ugly as sin).

If we were to judge and enter a game based on the platform it didn't wonk out on, then we'd have to actually bother to create system category awards. Like one for Nitnendo, XB,PS multiplats. Really though, we should just make separate platform awards, since all we have are genre based awards as well as actor or writing. 

At this current time, I find it rather tilted, because I know at some point in the future, where a game that comes out to PC and then consoles, there is a chance it could be a good game and it not running so well on the other systems, then we'll be facing another "it doesn't deserve it", and it'll likely be based on how it runs, which is why I decided to talk about it recently, because I've seen this happening with ports over the years.

For some people it was their GOTY the year it launched.

You definitely know XBox is doing something wrong again, when they release another console with features that will probably be deactivated after some time, just because they cost too much power.

Same 4 or 5 guys. I think at this time Xbox guys know who's doing what and should just not respond to them.

You must admit a certain backlash is understandable, after all the “we’re helping with development and will give it our First Party Gold Treatment” talk from Microsoft, before release. 

Pretty sad, but not unexpected.

i didn’t expect so much concern trolling over an early access game though, as if that info had been hidden this whole time.

Its the chance that is taken on game preview. Its like not wearing a condom..

I dont jump into the game previews for these reasons, i learned my lesson from ARK.

In general they get early (and on-going) access to a title, get to help fund its development (and often allow the final game to be larger and better polished), be a part of the community that helps shape the game's future, and sometimes get the game cheaper long-term (not applicable to PUBG, but it is to many early access titles). It's fine if you don't consider these benefits worth it, but many others do. It's also entirely fine for you to in general disapprove of early access, but again, others feel differently.

I didn't say "it really is that", i said it's likley that's the case. The alternative would be an illogical position for MS to attempt to hold in extreme situations, for both the reasons i noted.

Indeed, because those people weighed the risks and rewards of going digital and many have decided it's worth it. I agree it's a shame in many respects, but it's down to the consumer to decide how much they value the benefits.

It must be fairly taxing replying to people AND attempting to dig into their brains, trying to figure out their motivation for posting comments. 

I don't own the game nor have I played it. I don't know if it's good or bad and don't care. I was simply addressing the concept that a game which ships with multiplayer being so broken that it doesn't even WORK could be considered a functional game. I don't think it is... not as a whole. Games aren't judged and reviewed mode-by-mode. They're judged and reviewed as a whole and as a whole, the game didn't function or work properly. Some of it did, some of it didn't. It was a total fuck job imo.