Unable to use Vegas Pro 23 after purchase... When can we expect a stab

yoo-changyun wrote on 12/19/2025, 5:47 AM

I have always been a loyal user who purchases the latest version of Vegas Pro immediately upon release, without hesitation. Naturally, I bought version 23 as soon as it launched.

However, I haven't been able to use Vegas Pro 23 properly at all due to various critical errors and bugs.

I really just want to be able to use the software I paid for properly. If I had known it would be this unstable, I would not have purchased it so early. It is very disappointing. I sincerely hope that a stable update will be released as soon as possible.

Furthermore, in the future, if there are issues, I hope the staff will be transparent and post an official notice stating that the build is being withdrawn. It is deeply disappointing to see you happily announce the release of Build 356, only to silently remove it without a single word of explanation. This lack of communication is truly regrettable.

Comments

Reyfox wrote on 12/19/2025, 6:30 AM

If you read the other posts, you would know why the build was removed.

As for me, B356 has been the most stable, non-crashing build on my computer. So I am keeping it installed. Tomorrow might be a different story, but right now, I'm doing good.

Read this POST.

RogerS wrote on 12/19/2025, 6:37 AM

I agree more transparency from the developers would go a long way and some issues like various problems with ProRes have plagued 23 from the start.

Manuel-Artigues wrote on 12/19/2025, 7:05 AM

I agree 100% with the previous comment.
The instability of the VP23 B.356 version is unfortunate
It has caused me damage and loss of time
I am trying to return to VP22 but the new VEG files are useless.

jacknsb wrote on 12/19/2025, 7:05 AM

I fully agree that an official announcement regarding the withdrawal of Build 356 should have been a priority.

I understand that not everyone is experiencing the same bugs and that some users are running the newer versions without incident. However, the fact that it works for some doesn't invalidate the critical failures others are facing. I am currently splitting my workload between Vegas 22 and 23, and my projects in 23 honestly scare me. I’m still dealing with critical issues regarding color correction, frequent crashing, and the general mess of yesterday’s release.

I spent an hour and a half troubleshooting the playhead issue before finally resorting to the previous Build 302. That is billable time I will never get back—for an issue I reported immediately—yet we are still left in the dark by the developers. Even if Build 356 was intended as a beta, there is a baseline expectation of functionality. Critical errors like this should be caught by QA, especially when the automatic updater does not prompt the user that they are installing a beta build.

My goal here isn't to vent out of spite or anger. It’s to encourage the developers and the power users on this forum to be more transparent. We need advice that helps the community at large. The first users who reported these errors should have been encouraged to revert to a previous build immediately, rather than being told 'it’s fine on my end.' That simple shift in community response could have saved people hours of troubleshooting. Moving forward, the developers must update release notes or make a formal forum announcement when a build is pulled.

Reyfox wrote on 12/19/2025, 7:28 AM

I don't know if I qualify as a "power user", but I've been quite forth coming of my issues with VP23 past builds. I would, if I had a project to do and get out, I'd use VP22 B250 because it worked and was stable. Now, VP23 B356 has so far been quite stable for me.

@Manuel-Artigues what you can do is load your project in VP23, then copy (Ctrl A, Ctrl C), then paste the project in VP22.

jacknsb wrote on 12/19/2025, 8:20 AM

@Reyfox VP23 aren't backwards compatible with VP22, including copy-pasting. At least that's what I've observed in my own testing. I would assume because of the new video-engine this functionality has been lost.

RogerS wrote on 12/19/2025, 8:32 AM

I think that's a bug as well as I am pretty sure it was possible with earlier builds of 23.