Yet another update to DCS 2.8 Open Beta, but what about the stable?

[Raisuli]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but if the majority of players are running the OB why have two versions? What’s the point? Just have one buggy version for everyone. 

I'll assume that's not a rhetorical question. 

Disclaimer: I do not work for DCS.  I do work for a software company, though.

QA is a nightmare, and the more complex the software the more nightmarish it becomes.  Then consider our friend Bill Gates, who found out *nix (there's more than one flavor) uses something called linked libraries, and the guy who wrote the NT kernel, who until MS hired him from DEC wrote VMS, which is why the underlying OS is (still) case insensitive.

The upshot to that paragraph is every installation of windows is a little different.  When you install software you also install DLLs, linked libraries.  That means my Windows is different than yours is different than the one five feet away that I game on that's different than the laptop a few inches away I work on.

Now write a piece of complex software, and DCS is a beast, that's designed to run on that quagmire of an operating system.  There is simply no possible way for them to replicate every possible permutation of Windows versions, DLLs, motherboards, memory , video driver versions, sound drivers, mice, keyboards, monitors, usb devices...the possible combinations are close enough to infinite.  It can't be done.

So, write software, run it though in-house QA to get the low hanging fruit.

Hand it off to the closed beta team and see what they find.  There's more of them, more permutations, and they'll find even more problems.

Then open beta.  No idea how many users, but orders of magnitude more than closed beta.  More permutations.  I absolutely promise the open beta users do things with the software that nobody else has done before...mission designs, scripts, flying spitfires through the wires of the tower bridge (I'm looking at you SevenLine)...

Once they think they have most of the problems solved and the bug reports are down to a dull roar cross their fingers and release as a stable version.  It still has bugs, guaranteed, but they hope the most egregious have been resolved. 

The open beta version, which is buggy, also has the latest and greatest.  Some people think that's enough to overlook some inconveniences while ED works on problems.  Others do not.  Hence the 'stable' version.  It's a choice.  Lots o' bugs and lots of shiny newness, or less bugs and less newness. 

It's all about what is more enjoyable for the player.  You can even pick both, if you want.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Raisuli said:

I'll assume that's not a rhetorical question. 

Disclaimer: I do not work for DCS.  I do work for a software company, though.

QA is a nightmare, and the more complex the software the more nightmarish it becomes.  Then consider our friend Bill Gates, who found out *nix (there's more than one flavor) uses something called linked libraries, and the guy who wrote the NT kernel, who until MS hired him from DEC wrote VMS, which is why the underlying OS is (still) case insensitive.

The upshot to that paragraph is every installation of windows is a little different.  When you install software you also install DLLs, linked libraries.  That means my Windows is different than yours is different than the one five feet away that I game on that's different than the laptop a few inches away I work on.

Now write a piece of complex software, and DCS is a beast, that's designed to run on that quagmire of an operating system.  There is simply no possible way for them to replicate every possible permutation of Windows versions, DLLs, motherboards, memory , video driver versions, sound drivers, mice, keyboards, monitors, usb devices...the possible combinations are close enough to infinite.  It can't be done.

So, write software, run it though in-house QA to get the low hanging fruit.

Hand it off to the closed beta team and see what they find.  There's more of them, more permutations, and they'll find even more problems.

Then open beta.  No idea how many users, but orders of magnitude more than closed beta.  More permutations.  I absolutely promise the open beta users do things with the software that nobody else has done before...mission designs, scripts, flying spitfires through the wires of the tower bridge (I'm looking at you SevenLine)...

Once they think they have most of the problems solved and the bug reports are down to a dull roar cross their fingers and release as a stable version.  It still has bugs, guaranteed, but they hope the most egregious have been resolved. 

The open beta version, which is buggy, also has the latest and greatest.  Some people think that's enough to overlook some inconveniences while ED works on problems.  Others do not.  Hence the 'stable' version.  It's a choice.  Lots o' bugs and lots of shiny newness, or less bugs and less newness. 

It's all about what is more enjoyable for the player.  You can even pick both, if you want.

I get it. Testing is a job. But every other game seems to do this without making the public product a test version. There’s little difference between an open beta and just selling an untested game. Sure you can make unpaid testers out of all your customers but that’s hardly acceptable. Does your company sell its open beta? And again the problem is also the release cadence that keeps the Beta as the latest version 80% of the time effective making it the release version. I don’t see this practice in any other software I own. I don’t buy Turbo Tax and act as a beta testing customer. What you’re saying makes sense only to a computer programmer but not to a customer. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

12 hours ago, ac5 said:

Well, if as you say, "Latest stable is the last-but one Open Beta". Pushed down the throat whether it's really ready or not. "Good enough" rather than really polished"....

Why don't they publish that stable? It's been over 4 months since the last one.....  

Because that's actually wrong. Latest stable isn't the last-but one Open Beta. People don't want to truly understand how Stable and Open Beta works, that's up to them. It's not a difficult concept really and it's being explained. People just don't like it so they choose not to understand it I guess.

I can only guess you're just trying to win an argument rather than trying to find a solution to your perceived problem. Either that, or you like complaining about nonsense. There is no problem that you have raised that there hasn't been simple solutions that meet your needs. For some reason you seem to be obsessed at whether the game installed on your PC is tagged 'Open Beta' or 'Stable'. You don't care if it's stable enough for Stable. You have stated you just want the current version of Open Beta to be called Stable now, and even though you can have everything you want - (except a title change) -because ED generously gives us many options. You appeared worried about what ED calls the build you want to run on, and nothing more. At the end, that's as far as your concern really seems to go and honestly - it's getting very tiring - especially for those of us who have taken time out to try and help you to understand what you can do - just to later realise this appears to be more closer akin to trolling than it does having a genuine need and we've wasted our time.

I too am waiting for stable to be promoted, and at times I find myself getting impatient. The difference is though - I understand the concept an appreciate ED giving us the choice. For us that do get the concept of Open Beta vs Stable releases, and appreciate having a stable release that is promoted less often - I say "leave it as it is". Everyone at the moment has a choice. All your asking for is choices to be taken away from some other people to suit your ideals more. That's it. 

I primarily choose to use OB for testing, stable for real flights. If I had access to CB, I'd probably use that for testing - because I understand the concept of BETA being a test environment. I don't have CB access but appreciate that I have OB access before it's promoted to Stable... for testing.  I get, and appreciate the difference between the two. 

Otherwise if people really don't see the need for 2 versions, their is a very simple solution. Get rid of Open Beta. Only allow the public access to Stable. Make them wait longer. Only allow people access to Beta that understand the concept clearly and are willing to participate in a BETA program as testers - instead of those who think BETA means 'quicker access - not a test release'. Honestly - I think that solution would suck - as I'm for people having options to choose for themselves. Not being forced to do what someone else wants.  

Edited April 27, 2023 by Dangerzone

[Dangerzone]

6 hours ago, Raisuli said:

Once they think they have most of the problems solved and the bug reports are down to a dull roar cross their fingers and release as a stable version.  It still has bugs, guaranteed, but they hope the most egregious have been resolved. 

What a refreshing post to read someone who gets it. Thanks Raisuli. 

Just this week I saw a larger server operator closed down one of their servers in the Asia Pacific area. Reason given "every dcs update is a lottery if something brakes or not".  To me, this is one of the key reasons to run Stable on a server. Less chasing of things that are breaking, less updates, let others test the changes publicly before we do. I find it a shame more server owners don't see the light in this and how much easier it is to run Stable than Open Beta with less problems and overload themselves to the point where they give up.  Stable isn't perfect - but it's a lot less work maintaining than Open Beta.

 

[draconus]

If you just want to play - play, don't lurk into forums and newsletters for what's coming - updates are optional.

If you want latest and greatest, and have access to most MP servers - go beta - no bug reporting is required.

You have two options - choose one. Can't be simpler than this.

[Baldrick33]

I have been playing racing and flight sims for over 30 years. Moving on from buying boxed sets in game shops that seldom would ever be patched we have varying release and update cycles, continuous development, open and closed betas. I have been in small alpha test teams, big closed betas, open betas and of course most the time just a paying customer - just like those old days of reading PC gaming mags and browsing the games store - the big difference being we get to know a lot more of what is going.

My experience is that developers find what works for them and the various approaches all have their pros and cons. I have no real issue with the DCS release method even though it is different to other games I have invested time into. 

Using VR I have the contingency of stable or rolling back openbeta should there be a performance breaking update that renders all aircraft unplayable but thus far this hasn’t happened for me.

[Art-J]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I get it. Testing is a job. But every other game seems to do this without making the public product a test version. There’s little difference between an open beta and just selling an untested game. Sure you can make unpaid testers out of all your customers but that’s hardly acceptable. Does your company sell its open beta? And again the problem is also the release cadence that keeps the Beta as the latest version 80% of the time effective making it the release version. I don’t see this practice in any other software I own. I don’t buy Turbo Tax and act as a beta testing customer. What you’re saying makes sense only to a computer programmer but not to a customer. 

 

Now I don't believe you say it honestly with a straight face. 

You can't say it nowadays, when even in AAA gaming industry releasing unfinished, buggy as F, early access product (with vague declarations that it's going to be sorted out "later") while charging full premium price for it is becoming a "norm" (Star Citizen, Cyberpunk, TLOU1 PC port anyone?). That's why I personally tend to purchase games two years after their release - more chance of getting a polished product for what it's actually worth. But I digress.... 

Not that I say It's acceptable business practice, it's absolutely not, but let's be real. What ED does it still on more civilized (or shall we say "less messed up") side compared to bigger, mainstream studios out there.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Art-J

[Art-J]

1 hour ago, Dangerzone said:

Because that's actually wrong. Latest stable isn't the last-but one Open Beta. People don't want to truly understand how Stable and Open Beta works, that's up to them. It's not a difficult concept really and it's being explained. People just don't like it so they choose not to understand it I guess.

It's not wrong and I do understand how OB works, thank you. I didn't mean LITERALLY last but one, because obviously, there are a few build numbers between them right now for example. But the fact is, once every OB has the critical issues sorted (crashes, freezes, memory leaks etc.), it gets pushed to stable despite lots of smaller bugs still remaining unresolved. But at least the latter is unlikely to crash during SP or MP missions (not counting custom mods related issues!) and I'd say that's the answer for ac5's question of why the stable-OB separation is still there.

[5ephir0th]

I, seriously, dont know what OP want to achieve to be honest:

• He complain about the lack of stable updates over the lasts months
• He is told that Stable its no more than the last Open Beta at the moment of the Stable is released
• He tells he would be happy if ED release the last Open Beta as Stable
• He is told that he can do whenever he want
• He still complain about why its not ED the one that do that

Well, obviously not all Open Beta gets released as stable, in fact theres a bunch of OB released every Stable one, if ED change this way of work:

• If ED deprecated OB and released only Stable when they think is good enough, people will complain by the lack of updates
• If ED deprecated OB and released all OB versions as Stable people will complain by all the bug that gets released
• If ED deprecated Stable and release only OB like a game in Early Access, people will complain

So now you have the option of getting the OB or Stable way, can change between both, no problem, and you are not working as free beta tester as OB is optional, if people made the OB the most used one above the Stable thats not on ED side, thats user decision as we are so impatients we want the new funtionalities asap, many games has and stable and a beta release, including that civ sim, as far as we have the option to change i think its fine.

DCS its a monster with many third party modules that sometimes get broken when something is change at the core

Edited April 27, 2023 by 5ephir0th

[Dangerzone]

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

It's not wrong and I do understand how OB works, thank you. I didn't mean LITERALLY last but one, because obviously, there are a few build numbers between them right now for example. But the fact is, once every OB has the critical issues sorted (crashes, freezes, memory leaks etc.), it gets pushed to stable despite lots of smaller bugs still remaining unresolved. But at least the latter is unlikely to crash during SP or MP missions (not counting custom mods related issues!) and I'd say that's the answer for ac5's question of why the stable-OB separation is still there.

Sorry - I wasn't sure. I have seen a number of people actually literally believe what you're saying, or otherwise that Stable follows the same path as open beta, but just a few weeks behind. (Which is wrong, but somehow seems to be understood this way by some). The amount of confusion over how Stable and Open Beta operate on this forum has been considerable, so I thought it best to clarify (and probably good I did since the OP took your post literally too when responding to you).

I apologize for implying your post as being literal when that wasn't your intention. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Dangerzone

[Dangerzone]

21 minutes ago, 5ephir0th said:

I, seriously, dont know what OP want to achieve to be honest:

• He complain about the lack of stable updates over the lasts months
• He is told that Stable its no more than the last Open Beta at the moment of the Stable is released
• He tells he would be happy if ED release the last Open Beta as Stable
• He is told that he can do whenever he want
• He still complain about why its not ED the one that do that

There's been a number of very informative responses made, but he seems to only focus on those he can argue his point with which is that no matter any of the above - ED should be releasing the current Open Beta as stable now without any other consideration. I think that's the gist of it. It seems to have nothing to do with what he can do right now, or that he has everything he wants. It's just that ED isn't giving it to him in the way that he wants. (Which comes down to him wanting dcs_updater to call @release instead of @openbeta for him to have the current public release and force the rest of us stable users up even though it may not be ready).

Quote

Well, obviously not all Open Beta gets released as stable, in fact theres a bunch of OB released every Stable one, if ED change this way of work:

• If ED deprecated OB and released only Stable when they think is good enough, people will complain by the lack of updates
• If ED deprecated OB and released all OB versions as Stable people will complain by all the bug that gets released
• If ED deprecated Stable and release only OB like a game in Early Access, people will complain

So now you have the option of getting the OB or Stable way, can change between both, no problem, and you are not working as free beta tester as OB is optional, if people made the OB the most used one above the Stable thats not on ED side, thats user decision as we are so impatients we want the new funtionalities asap, many games has and stable and a beta release, including that civ sim, as far as we have the option to change i think its fine.

DCS its a monster with many third party modules that sometimes get broken when something is change at the core

Summed up very well. The problem isn't a lack of options. The problem appears to be that ED isn't doing it the way some people think it should be done - even though ED has given them all the options to choose how to do things themselves and ED aren't holding them back, and any change to this way would actually reduce the options available. 

I don't get it. I've seen a number of posts on this forum where people come across more obsessed with what other people have, or how other people do things (and I guess that includes ED) even though it doesn't affect them at all) - rather than focusing on what does affect them, what options are available to them and ignoring what others have or don't have. The suggestions here wouldn't make any difference to what they want - it would just stop other people from having different options. It's a strange way of thinking. 

I'm not saying that I think the release cycle can't be improved, or that I'd like to see more focus on restoring bugs before releasing new features. But what's been asked for here isn't that - it's only about throwing Stable out quicker regardless of what issues the current public build has.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, 5ephir0th said:

if people made the OB the most used one above the Stable thats not on ED side, thats user decision

This is actually a proof how good beta runs for the users. It wouldn't be a case if OB was so unstable and bugged as some are afraid it supposedly is.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Art-J said:

Now I don't believe you say it honestly with a straight face. 

Ok tell your customer with a straight face: something about kernels and Windows and then say that testing is just too much work for us so we want you to do it because we can’t. And pay for the privilege. 

And the real problem here isn’t the concept of an open beta (although that seems like a poor solution) it’s the fact that all multiplayer uses it. Not just some of it, all of it. Which is rather inexplicable. So yeah the solution is probably for ED to enforce odd and even days between the two versions since the players can’t seem to manage this for themselves. 
 

Looking at the pace of development in DCS it doesn’t seem like open beta is any help. It’s just treated as the release game by the players who I’m sure don’t act as testers in any real sense. And when they do make reports those don’t contain the right info, are the product of user error and mods etc. so they are just spinning the devs wheels. 
 

DCS is the only game I’m aware of that has an open beta like this. Plenty of other games including ongoing sim titles seem to get by just fine without one or in a way that this isn’t an issue for players. I don’t need to run the beta to do multiplayer in any other games. ED should think about a better solution. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Baldrick33]

If the people who regularly play multiplayer choose openbeta the last thing I would do as ED is mess around trying to enforce stable on players the days they want to play.

If ED want to attract the more casual players to play multiplayer then it would really need a matchmaking service and some big numbers to make that work. It is a big task and I am not sure it would bring in enough new customers to be worthwhile.

 

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

If the people who regularly play multiplayer choose openbeta the last thing I would do as ED is mess around trying to enforce stable on players the days they want to play.

If ED want to attract the more casual players to play multiplayer then it would really need a matchmaking service and some big numbers to make that work. It is a big task and I am not sure it would bring in enough new customers to be worthwhile.

 

Another solution is to restrict the open beta to SP only. Multiplayer is only viable if everyone is playing the same game version. The effect of open beta is to fragment an already tiny game online. I’m sure this is why any other games do not use an open beta especially niche ones like this. 

[erniedaoage]

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Another solution is to restrict the open beta to SP only. Multiplayer is only viable if everyone is playing the same game version. The effect of open beta is to fragment an already tiny game online. I’m sure this is why any other games do not use an open beta especially niche ones like this. 

And how you gonna find out with SP people when new multiplayer bugs get introduced? 

And there are a lot of games which have a beta program, where you get new content before it drops to the public branch. There are even playtest events with some games when new content gets introduced or new features, before the drop it to the public branch.

Edited April 27, 2023 by erniedaoage
spelling mistakes

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, erniedaoage said:

And how you gonna find out with SP people when new multiplayer bugs get introduced? 

And there are a lot of games which have a beta program, where you get new content before it drops to the public branch. There are even playtest events with some games when new content gets introduced or new features, before the drop it to the public branch.

 

You’d have to just address any mp bugs from the stable version. 
Sure other games have beta tests or early access but none are like DCS in basically requiring it to play online. 
 

And it’s not like the open beta is any help in speeding up development for DCS. The pace here is downright glacial. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[ac5]

Well, there you have it. Fine, all software has bugs, and those of the OB are not worse than the release.

Completely useless and confusing to have two versions.  

[DD_Fenrir]

12 minutes ago, ac5 said:

Well, there you have it. Fine, all software has bugs, and those of the OB are not worse than the release.

Completely useless and confusing to have two versions.  

Fundamentally fails to grasp the point of OpenBeta despite it being explained ad nauseum.

Well done.

[SharpeXB]

24 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Fundamentally fails to grasp the point of OpenBeta despite it being explained ad nauseum.

If the majority of the players are using the open beta as a release version then it serves no purpose at all. Other than to just divide up the game online. Again that’s why you don’t see any other game doing this. 

[SkateZilla]

The Answer:
Because the Features in OB need to be properly tested and tuned before going to stable..

[DD_Fenrir]

@SharpeXB

Male Bovine Excrement.

The point of Open Beta is that ED cannot possibly account for:

• the vast array of hardware and software combinations out there in use by the community and that can have a direct effect on the game’s stability 
• the almost impossible to replicate way we interface with DCS in terms of mission design, weapons/systems employment, trigger combinations and the gamut of edge of envelope flight model excursions that we as users en masse will execute.

It has happened before, though it has been a while, where a serious game breaking bug has been introduced in Open Beta and the community at large has been glad of a Stable version to fall back on; admittedly that has meant that for the owners of module(s) affected it means losing out on a new toy or feature temporarily but generally for a short period and that most of the rest of your consumer base has not had their entertainment shafted by a bit of errant code.

Ultimately you have a choice to opt in to Open Beta - if you do so for the “new toys! Gimme gimme!!!” without acknowledging the possible caveats then that’s your own damn fault.

If you choose to opt out because you don’t want the risk then be aware that you may wait a while as ED want to square away as much as possible before committing to a Stable release branch - you have no leverage in that process as it’s their software and their decision. Want to sway that decision? Then get on the board or start buying significant shareholder stick cos otherwise you’re farting at the wind. 
 

And if you think they are being deliberately obtuse by holding out on porting the Beta to Stable then that says more about you than ED; they will be only too aware of the Stable only user base hanging on for an update and probably have damn good reason to hold back that you aren’t entitled to know about. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Another solution is to restrict the open beta to SP only.

What?

Then how is anybody expected to test whether or not a new feature has issues in multiplayer? Y'know, things like synchronisation of cockpits?

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You’d have to just address any mp bugs from the stable version. 

Oh brilliant, so MP specific bugs that could've been spotted, reported and even potentially fixed will now potentially go potentially unspotted until a stable version comes out.

I mean how do you even square this idea, when you say things like this:

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And it’s not like the open beta is any help in speeding up development for DCS. The pace here is downright glacial. 

What do you think restricting multiplayer to stable is going to do?

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Multiplayer is only viable if everyone is playing the same game version.

So... play the version that has the most present multiplayer community...

It's a trade-off. You either:

• Play the version that may have more game breaking bugs, but have access to new features and fixes sooner with a larger multiplayer community.
• Play the version that may have less bugs (after all, the stable build is an old OB build - sometimes (or even usually), when the stable is updated it's the same version as the OB, with exactly the same features and bugs), at expense of waiting longer and having a smaller multiplayer community.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

45 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

@SharpeXB

Male Bovine Excrement.

The point of Open Beta is that ED cannot possibly account for:

• the vast array of hardware and software combinations out there in use by the community and that can have a direct effect on the game’s stability 
• the almost impossible to replicate way we interface with DCS in terms of mission design, weapons/systems employment, trigger combinations and the gamut of edge of envelope flight model excursions that we as users en masse will execute.

It has happened before, though it has been a while, where a serious game breaking bug has been introduced in Open Beta and the community at large has been glad of a Stable version to fall back on; admittedly that has meant that for the owners of module(s) affected it means losing out on a new toy or feature temporarily but generally for a short period and that most of the rest of your consumer base has not had their entertainment shafted by a bit of errant code.

Ultimately you have a choice to opt in to Open Beta - if you do so for the “new toys! Gimme gimme!!!” without acknowledging the possible caveats then that’s your own damn fault.

If you choose to opt out because you don’t want the risk then be aware that you may wait a while as ED want to square away as much as possible before committing to a Stable release branch - you have no leverage in that process as it’s their software and their decision. Want to sway that decision? Then get on the board or start buying significant shareholder stick cos otherwise you’re farting at the wind. 
 

And if you think they are being deliberately obtuse by holding out on porting the Beta to Stable then that says more about you than ED; they will be only too aware of the Stable only user base hanging on for an update and probably have damn good reason to hold back that you aren’t entitled to know about. 

 

And yet other games seem to get along fine or even better without an Open Beta. So it must not be an essential process. All you’re saying is that “games need to be tested” no kidding. There are other probably better ways like a closed beta. 

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

What?

Then how is anybody expected to test whether or not a new feature has issues in multiplayer? Y'know, things like synchronisation of cockpits?

Why not have OB as single player only? Right now Stable is SP only. How about a trade?

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

So... play the version that has the most present multiplayer community...

It's a trade-off. You either:

• Play the version that may have more game breaking bugs, but have access to new features and fixes sooner with a larger multiplayer community.
• Play the version that may have less bugs (after all, the stable build is an old OB build - sometimes (or even usually), when the stable is updated it's the same version as the OB, with exactly the same features and bugs), at expense of waiting longer and having a smaller multiplayer community.

No other game is like this…

Edited April 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And yet other games seem to get along fine or even better without an Open Beta. So it must not be an essential process.

And ED, who are in the best position to judge this, do not agree.

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

All you’re saying is that “games need to be tested” no kidding. There are other probably better ways like a closed beta. 

There already is a closed-beta, but they have access to a much larger data pool, with much more diverse use cases and hardware in order to track issues. 

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why not have OB as single player only?

I thought I said why, oh well let's have it again:

Because it would delay testing of MP specific features.

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Right now Stable is SP only.

Well it isn't, but you do

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How about a trade?

What is there to trade?

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No other game is like this…

Yes and it's a bit of a pain - personally I see the stable version as being more-or-less pointless - it's simply just an older open beta and since the move to the montly release schedule, OB releases have generally been far less problematic than say, how it was back in 2.5.6.

Yes, it's useful to have a fallback option in case a recent OB breaks something, but you can easily revert to the previous version just like you can easily switch between stable and open beta.