Made the mistake of paying upfront for a full 12 months earlier this year for another subscription.
Unfortunately, they reserve the right to change the terms after the fact.
What bothers me about these cuts is the assumption that because the models are supposedly getting better and cheaper, less usage is somehow equivalent value. That may be true from their perspective, but they don't get to decide how much utility those extra capabilities have for every user.
It also leads to the AI version of "you’re holding it wrong" (i.e. you’re prompting it wrong/use a cheaper model/skill issue).
And I can't help wondering how much of this is also about shifting capacity toward the latest persistent-agent offering they're pushing. If that's the case, existing subscribers are effectively being asked to give up quota for a product direction they may not even care about.
Been a customer since GPT 5.3 Codex. This is the first time that I'm thinking of dropping the sub.
> If you have an existing plan you will keep the 20X multiplier for a bit and also receive a lot of additional credits because we know changes are hard even if it means that everyone will get more in the end.
This is the strangest part of the messaging here. $200/mo is a lot of money, and it came with the expectation, for me at least, that I was paying for the deluxe version of this service—the best one could get. Why am I supposed to be comforted by the idea that halving my usage limits (in the near but not immediate future) will lead to “everyone” getting more usage overall? Why should I internally reframe the (expensive) investment I made for personal gain as being some sort of altruistic endeavor?
Made the mistake of paying upfront for a full 12 months earlier this year for another subscription.
Unfortunately, they reserve the right to change the terms after the fact.
What bothers me about these cuts is the assumption that because the models are supposedly getting better and cheaper, less usage is somehow equivalent value. That may be true from their perspective, but they don't get to decide how much utility those extra capabilities have for every user.
It also leads to the AI version of "you’re holding it wrong" (i.e. you’re prompting it wrong/use a cheaper model/skill issue).
And I can't help wondering how much of this is also about shifting capacity toward the latest persistent-agent offering they're pushing. If that's the case, existing subscribers are effectively being asked to give up quota for a product direction they may not even care about.
Been a customer since GPT 5.3 Codex. This is the first time that I'm thinking of dropping the sub.
> If you have an existing plan you will keep the 20X multiplier for a bit and also receive a lot of additional credits because we know changes are hard even if it means that everyone will get more in the end.
This is the strangest part of the messaging here. $200/mo is a lot of money, and it came with the expectation, for me at least, that I was paying for the deluxe version of this service—the best one could get. Why am I supposed to be comforted by the idea that halving my usage limits (in the near but not immediate future) will lead to “everyone” getting more usage overall? Why should I internally reframe the (expensive) investment I made for personal gain as being some sort of altruistic endeavor?
[flagged]