It's not back in open beta. It is a new version. New versions have a mandatory beta phase before they can go to release. It's not rocket science and it has nothing to do with the quality of the previous version, it's just how software release cycles work.
Originally Posted by Paradaz
It's not how software cycles work at all. Only ED move an unoptimised, unfinished, untested product with literally hundreds of new and existing bugs from beta to release and then back into beta in order to claim their software has at some point reflected a stable build.
To be fair, Paradaz, Sobek's statement does make sense, but so does your claim. Your downfall, however, stems from the fact that you assume/require software companies to actually fix something to move a version from beta to release or from beta to stable. While ED does follow the flow of beta-then-release, it does not mean ED follows the assumption that a release or stable version is actually release-worthy or befitting of the word "stable."
ED knows of their memory issue but they deploy the software anyway and even move it from beta to release. ED notes that people complain of the memory issue so they change their system requirements and call it a "fix".
Expecting ED to follow the norm? Have we not learned anything?
