Will future rack compatibility be only a reason 10 verson?

[exxx]

This new UJAM Virtual Bassist Competition! rack can not be used for 9.5 reasons.

I've contacted propellerhead

That's because it uses the new sdk

Are all new racks incompatible with previous versions?

[Loque]

No, just if the dev creates it for the new SDK. It is even more complicated, resource intensive and time consuming to develope for 2 SDKs.

[boingy]

This new UJAM Virtual Bassist Competition! rack can not be used for 9.5 reasons.

I've contacted propellerhead

That's because it uses the new sdk

Are all new racks incompatible with previous versions?

Thanks Exx, You just saved me a bit of time. I like the UJAM vst stuff and I've been pondering whether to enter the competition or not. I'm also on R9.5 so the decision is made for me. It's probably just as well as I tend not to use those kind of tools in the intended manner so I'd have been taking their lovely library and mashing and twisting the hell out of it. The judges may not have been been impressed! Plus, of course, it saves me from scowling and muttering at the login window every time I start Reason because I have a demo RE on the go.

[Magnus]

I would love it if the new RE SDKs got backported at some point to let Reason 6.5, 7, 8 and 9 users install any rack extension...as a gift to older users....but I know that it will never happen...

[chaosroyale]

I don't want to pick on you guys in particular, but an obsession with forwards compatibility is a weird quirk of some Reason forum users.

It doesn't make any sense for a developer to make every new development compatible with outdated technology. It doesn't even make sense to obsess about backwards compatibility if it limits your new features. (Reason is highly backwards-compatible, even to a fault)

"I wish they would add RE's, audio recording and VSTs to Reason 4". They did! It's called Reason 10.

[boingy]

I don't want to pick on you guys in particular, but an obsession with forwards compatibility is a weird quirk of some Reason forum users.

It doesn't make any sense for a developer to make every new development compatible with outdated technology. It doesn't even make sense to obsess about backwards compatibility if it limits your new features. (Reason is highly backwards-compatible, even to a fault)

"I wish they would add RE's, audio recording and VSTs to Reason 4". They did! It's called Reason 10.

Please don't include me in that. I have absolutely no desire or expectation that PH do any more work on older versions. I'd much rather they forged ahead towards Reason 11. That's when they will get another chance at prising money out of me!

[Magnus]

I don't want to pick on you guys in particular, but an obsession with forwards compatibility is a weird quirk of some Reason forum users.

It doesn't make any sense for a developer to make every new development compatible with outdated technology. It doesn't even make sense to obsess about backwards compatibility if it limits your new features. (Reason is highly backwards-compatible, even to a fault)

"I wish they would add RE's, audio recording and VSTs to Reason 4". They did! It's called Reason 10.

Please don't include me in that. I have absolutely no desire or expectation that PH do any more work on older versions. I'd much rather they forged ahead towards Reason 11. That's when they will get another chance at prising money out of me!

Your example is slightly extreme What I think makes no sense is them limiting the outreach of customers to Rack Extensions! More support to old versions = more potential sales!

[buddard]

This new UJAM Virtual Bassist Competition! rack can not be used for 9.5 reasons.

I've contacted propellerhead

That's because it uses the new sdk

Are all new racks incompatible with previous versions?

In short, developers are not forced to use the latest SDK version. It's usually a trade-off between backwards compatibility and using new SDK features, and in our case we take that decision for each device.

For instance, we made TM-1 Trigger Multiplexer using SDK 2.5 (Reason 9.2 and later) because we felt that the ability to use Shift and Cmd/Ctrl modifiers in the displays was necessary from a usability perspective.

For CV-I and CV-O, that were released after TM-1, we used SDK 2.2 (Reason 7.1 and later) since they don't do anything that would require a later version.