So many negative comments here. Among my circle, it’s not uncommon for people to have multiple $200 accounts. This seems like it would make things easier for them by letting them use one account instead of juggling two or more.
What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me. But these users absolutely do exist.
For less than the cost of this plan, you can get ChatGPT Pro 200, Claude Max 5x, and Kimi Code. At least that's what I'm doing, and the model diversity does help with adversarial code review loops.
At this point, why even bother with subscriptions and other packaged products of these model providers anyways. It’s just an extra hassle of juggling between them plus it introduces additional data privacy concerns.
Do things in a sustainable fashion and treat these models like the swappable commodity that they are by using them via abstraction layers. Bonus point is that you might be surprised how much more you can get for your money by intelligently optimizing specific model usage.
Subscriptions are still subsidized over API, so just like Uber I'll continue to milk them until I can't anymore (Uber back in the 2010s was incredible, you could get damn near anywhere for less than 5 bucks or so).
Your concern is legit. Pro is a personal plan under OpenAI's consumer privacy policy: "When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT, Sora, or Operator, we may use your content to train our models." As for the API it goes under the business one: "By default, we do not use your business data for training our models."
Claude has the same personal-professional split. Free, pro and Max have trained by default since Anthropic's policy change in August 2025. API and team plans didn't. Choosing between one and another is also choosing a training default. The subscriptions offers the opt-out setting, Data Controls for ChatGPT and Account settings for Claude, and it's worth checking before paying.
This approach is fun and rewarding but I think it makes sense to do this if/when models really stall out. Right now opus 5.5 is... amazing. I wouldn't use anything else.
“Over time, we see prices go low enough that it makes sense for most to buy usage as needed without there being a significant gap between what you get in a subscription and what you get in the API for a dollar spent.”
Yikes. I'm not the poster you're responding to, but
1. In this absolutely wild era of model progress, with frontier and near frontier models leapfrogging themselves seemingly on a weekly basis it's good to get experience with a variety of providers
2. This isn't exactly hard with OpenRouter!
3. I've had very good results having models from one provider critique plans and code written by models from another provider. Can't do that without subs to at least two providers
> What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me. But these users absolutely do exist.
I think you can just become slightly careless and off it goes. I just have a £20/mo ChatGPT and I'm getting it to do some HomeLab Kubernetes YAML for me that I have no desire to hand-type. I asked it a question and it zoomed off looking at all sorts of websites, running various git commands, doing anything except asking me for an answer to a question.
It ran through about 60% of my 5-hour allocation in those few minutes, which was an unheard-of rate for me before that, and I can imagine if I had zillions of tokens available I just wouldn't have noticed. As it is, my AGENTS.md now exists and is fairly stern.
Can you please explain to me how the announcement is anything but a negative? Especially for such power users. That same 200$ plan now allows for half the usage it did when I subscribed a couple weeks ago. Tibo and co can dress this pig up however they want, it's still less usage than I bargained for.
Yeah… i have multiple $200 Claude accounts and a supergrok heavy account and also a max $500. The max $500 was a new addition today, but i have my whole company basically wired and ran by ai with a central HQ setup. While the $1k month price is high, that $1k gives me the equivalent of a full dev team working 24/7. Pretty soon we’ll need more horsepower and will move to a model like kimi 3 or local hosting our own model. Thats something i still have to learn more about. But yeah, build a system where you can swap any model or ai platform in and out easily
Would you ask the same thing if they happened to employ a single quality software developer? Can you imagine paying said developer 12k a year and expect them to deliver? How about a personal tutor who you have access to 24/?
I've been dropping the equivalent of a car payment for three months and it's been worth every single penny; even if I never actually sell a product.
It was originally a small project in scope, just a basic GameBoy emulator, a shader VM, and some Azure integrations. Just a bunch of things I wanted to dabble with in order to learn and have fun. Over the past few months it has grown immensely into something resembling an operating system more than a toy engine. There's even a custom DSL for authoring worlds that abstracts over the state/rendering models; it's completely ridiculous!
Will I make any money off the thing? Probably not, don't care. The things I've learned along the way have been worth way more than the amount of money I burned on a few monthly subscriptions. Learning how to interact with agents and treat them like a team was worth it alone; the product I have now is simply a nice bonus.
>What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me.
What intrigues me more is how are they not done building whatever they were building? LLMs have been jaw-droppingly good for a good 6 months now.
The people spending thousands on LLM bills a month should've been done building significant chunks of Microsoft's or Google's software portfolio by now.
I guess what I mean is how is producing code still the limiting factor in whatever they're doing?
I produce a firehose of personal software and I still cannot max out a $20 plan.
It's actually insane how often I switch between Anthropic and Codex subscriptions. The experience on these platforms is a bit like riding a roller coaster.
I don’t think it’s the individual with a single account that precipitated this change, it’s the users with many, many 20x accounts. Anthropic is less clear on their limits, but they have never given bonus usage, so again OpenAI is the late follower (as with adding a 5x plan).
I ended up going with a Synthetic subscription (they host some open-weight models including K3 and GLM 5.3). They're the only subscription that I found that's simultaneously cheaper than token rates, and is extremely transparent about usage and pricing.
I tried searching for "Synthetic AI Subscription" and "Synthetic Data" is such a massive keyword in AI pre-training circles it's impossible to find the company.
How does that make economical sense from the side of synthetic though? (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I usually am)
If they're simultaneously cheaper than token rates but couldn't they have sold these tokens in the first place on a platform like openrouter?
And the platforms that are hosting these tokens on openrouter aren't really earning any money at all in the first place as that itself is a race to bottom (and its more so just neutral, neither positive nor loss or barely profitable) so unless synthetic is actively making loss, and if that's the case, then it might not be sustainable, I don't quite understand the economics behind it.
Is the economics behind this the fact that since its a single subscription instead of token based pricing. Some people might use less tokens than what their subscription costs and so it offsets/subsidizes the other set of people who need more tokens.
But then, this means that as you had suggested in the first place, it would be a good deal for the people who want more tokens, so they would flock even more to the platform and it should eventually balance out unless external money is being burnt as I had said earlier.
I am genuinely interested in how they make this work so I would love if someone can shine some more light to it as I would like to read more about its economics that makes it work, thanks in advance! :-D
It appears, from the outside, to be a collection of small optimizations:
- The way they pace and limit usage seems to echo some strategies I've seen to reduce the impact of burst usage
- They cut down the maximum context length of most models
- They claim to have some custom sauce that improves how they handle API requests and reduces error rates
- Their explanations appear focused around optimizing concurrency in the same way that the 'flex' mode of some APIs does, though I've not seen specific docs of them claiming that this is part of how they save on costs
There may be more that I haven't seen or noticed. I don't work for or with them.
It took me a while to figure this out too and only did in the last couple days: a 10x, 20x, or 25x plan is the cost of your monthly sub times that multiplier in terms of API costs.
So a 20x plan, that was formerly $200, would have been $4000 in API credits. Which sounds like a lot but the API is absolutely horrendously expensive - like you'll burn through $100 in 45 minutes of 5.6 Sol on High reasoning. I know this because I did this once.
They still used multipliers in the email. The relevant passage was:
Starting October 30, 2026, your included usage in ChatGPT Work and Codex will decrease from 20 times to 10 times the ChatGPT Plus allowance. Your GPT-6 Pro limit in Chat will decrease from 200 to 100 messages per week. Your price remains unchanged and you’ll keep your current limits through October 29, 2026.
And:
For those who want even more usage and speed, the new Pro 500 tier offers our highest usage allowance, with 25 times the usage of Plus. It also includes access to Ultrafast, with up to 8 times faster token generation.
They also said this in the email announcement I got:
> As a thank you for being an existing subscriber and to help you continue to build your most ambitious ideas and transition, we’re also giving you a one-time grant of 62,500 usage credits (a $2,500 USD value). You’ll see these appear in Settings > Usage. They will expire on December 31, 2026, and use of the credits is governed by the Service Credit Terms.
I have no idea how much 62,500 usage credits are. Given the value they suggest I feel it's like one extra week of usage.
> Given the value they suggest I feel it's like one extra week of usage.
With how many resets they've been giving out lately, if you consistently max things out I would say this is a reasonable guess. You can ask your clanker via your favorite harness (the usage credits are equivalent to API pricing):
> Based on my session files and official OpenAI API pricing, check how much I would have spent in the past few months if I switched to the OpenAI API.
Agree but if you don't want to then be at the mercy of the cloud providers when everyone is rushing for the exits, you need to start thinking about securing hardware now.
Pricing decisions are important; you can't just remove half the usage for PRO200 just because you don't have the hardware resources to manage all of the workload.
I've been paying for the PRO200 plan since day one, and I've never used it that much because Claude Code was and still is better at coding. I didn't even complain when they started nerfing their models.
I love OpenAI, but they should do better on such important decisions, knowing that all other companies are waiting for such missteps.
I wonder how this will go with the new releases like MiMo-v2.6-Pro or future GLM, DeepSeek, and Kimi releases around the corner. Once planned with Fable or Astra, the build process isn't much different with the open weight models from my usage.
you can pretty much run frontier-level models locally now with GLM 5.3 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next so this pricing feels very geared towards squeezing people who are still dependent on cloud subscription models only and don't know how to divert grunt work to cheaper models automatically with the 'smarter' frontier models acting as orchestrators and refinement
It's strange if that ends up to be this way. It's hard to see why would anybody subscribe to the $200 - or even the $500 for the sole benefit of using ultrafast (depleted probably within hours).
Literally just downgraded to the $20 a month one, as they're not grandfathering in the old plans. I don't think this is going to work the way they thought.
I’ll be doing the same as you 10/26 when our grandfather limits end, in addition to downgrading my Anthropic sub. I guess I’m shopping for hardware and open weight AIs now.
Seriously, even the "Learn more about limits" link just takes you to the posted page where it literally says nothing about limits or usage. Not even x20 or x10 or whatever, just zero information on what "more usage" actually means. I don't understand why they can't provide how much token usage you get.
Afaik the usage quota nerf to $200 Pro is true. Twitter is all over them right now. (Also you haven't been able to buy the $200 Pro plan for the last two weeks or so)
I can't believe I am defending these people and am not arguing this is the case, but a change in the multiplier isn't necessarily a downgrade if the value of X has increased. Yes, relative to Pro the new tier isn't as valuable, but it could still be more valuable relative to the old tier for the same price.
I'm saying we don't know what x is for Pro usage. If Pro's newX is 3 times oldX, new10x > old20x.
That aside, all of the ambiguity around usage is killing their credibility (among other things). Usage limits feel like they swing wildly day to day and week to week, and it's hard to trust any of the other claims they make when that's the case.
We must keep in mind, that even the 500 plan is not cost-covering for many users. Heavy users squeezing everything out of it. It is like the Internet-fees in the end 90s. The flat-rate was not cost-covering by heavy users and I think these plans are only used by heavy users.
Maybe we really come to an end of cheap KI and we will use all an mac studio m10 in a few years.
We have to assume that OpenAI knows how to math. Given that the plans all scale usage equally now the benefit of the 500 plan is only for OpenAI. Enough of a percentage of users don't squeeze everything of plans every single month that this profits them more.
That's what I was doing with my Pro 200 plan, except sometimes life gets in the way and I had couple weeks where I couldn't.
OpenAI must have statistics on what percentage of people with Pro accounts don't maximize the usage in a given. Even if it a very small percentage that is still income for providing nothing.
When you think about it, it's kind of ridiculous that the usage credit is use-it-or-lose it. It really should roll over.
I use a small percentage of my Pro token quota to find better deals on hotels, rental cars, discount codes for large purchases, etc. Have it automatically scanning credit card points promos and flight deals via various APIs too. Easily pays for itself in that regard. Over $1k, I'm not sure it would break even anymore.
I try to do the same thing, but I just don't see these very large savings. I can't even really justify the $200 or $100 tier off of it. I usually can match it immediately or beat it with just some brief Googling. I simply don't think the price arbitrage just really exists in any reliable way, month to month. Its more of a bonus if it happens to work out.
My tests in the past month, basically $0 saved over my findings:
- Two one-way flights
- New OLED 55"- 65" TV
- Mini PC for CI/CD runner, with very specific specs
- Expensive, specialized medical device
- Variety of car parts
I think one problem is that I simply already know the places to check for this stuff. The more esoteric places (ebay/fb marketplace/etc) agents seem to just be awful at parsing what is real, what is a scam, what is a good deal, etc, and that is where the big deals are for stuff.
What’s a typical concrete outcome from this workflow? Is it saving you time, or money? Because if you buy the $2500 flight when a $2000 flight is available and you just have to scroll down the page, that’s not $500 that you’ve saved…
For example, I needed two rental cars that could each carry seven people for a trip to Maine. There's so many different combinations of ways to search for this that it would take forever to do manually. I have membership in Avis, Hertz, Costco + Chase Reserve Travel, etc. Codex with direct browser usage bypasses most of the web fetch restrictions you get when trying to use the ChatGPT web UI on Pro mode.
I had Codex queue any CAPTCHAs for me to solve. Also set up one sub-agent to search Reddit for other people's clever approaches to getting good rental car deals. Ultimately, it found a third party reseller for Avis that had a price of $600 using a discount code for both cars vs $1,100 cheapest from Avis directly. I would not have discovered that on my own, at least not without like a week's worth of manual searching. So right there that was a $1,000 saving for both cars in exchange for 20 minutes of writing a decent Codex prompt.
Can even have it look for (and enter) sweepstakes within your interests, autonomously, if you give it access to its own email that you don't mind getting blasted with spam.
If it’s small percentage then you could spend just that few dollars in API costs or lower subscription and the rest is profit. So you're not saving anything, just reclassifying that opportunity cost to feel better about your subscription’s value. I know it's pedantic but it's useful to be aware of opportunity cost trying to trick us.
For flights, SerpApi (to get Google Flights data) in combination with seats.aero pro. I use data from those services with a MILP library where I provide various travel and cost constraints. Runs periodically and notifies me of any good deals. I don't know if my setup actually does much more than the more expensive paid services already out there, but I can at least customize it a lot more to my liking to avoid a lot of manual search effort.
Cosmo Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Cosmo Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Cosmo Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Cosmo Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Cosmo Kramer: But they do, and they're the ones writing it off.
Edit to be fair: the "500 minus tax write off" comment does make sense but often people overstates the benefits of writing things off.
My take - the $500/month is likely similar to the $200/month plan (albeit with Astra Ultrafast that consumes tokens ultrafast).
Or maybe it gives you just a little bit more tokens than older $200/month plan for plausible deniability:
Maybe me: “you’re charging $500/month for what was $200/month earlier”
Maybe OAI: “no we’re not!! You get *more* tokens than the older $200/month plan and did you hear, you get Astra Ultrafast access!”
Maybe me: “oh really? How many more tokens??”
Maybe OAI: “I’m sorry we can no longer share that information, it’s confidential. National security and all…”
More than an hour after I wrote this, OAI sent an email sounding eerily close to my approximation:
- $500 plan comes with not 20x,
but 25x allowance!
- also Astro Ultraspeed
- $200 pulled down to 10x quota
Things I hadn’t anticipated:
- one time ~62,000 credit
top-up ($2,500 API call
value)
- 5 hour quota limits removed
The removal of 5 hourly quotas can negate some reduction in token allowance. Especially relevant for those of us working in 2-3 day bursts (such as weekends). Because these folks weren’t using their full weekly quota before, they already had a decent buffer.
Maybe OAI thinks people are creating new unnecessary work to use their allowance completely. Well they aren’t entirely wrong. But the experimentation has been useful in letting us discover new use-cases, and to develop and flex our agentic muscles.
I've talked to VP at my company and we both agreed $1000 for the time saved, is still 'worth it'.
Dev salaries are high and devs often have to realign buttons or change colors. We are not always working on complex ideas.
I rewrote a big piece of software from scratch....it had 0 docs. Documenting of classes and flow took me weeks. Complete rewrite took almost 2 years. I am confident that with AI I would be able to get this done in a few months.
I mean, it's a good deal for the boss, but I also wouldn't want to waste two years of my life doing something I could do in a couple months or weeks, would you? That's not a good use of my life, regardless of whether someone's willing to pay me.
I'd rather use the fancy models while absurd valuations are subsidising them and then pick up a couple grand worth of their old hardware in a few years when they're eol.
Not 100% in the first year (where I live). By the time it’s depreciated, it’s time to replace. Subscriptions are 100% deductible in the year you pay them.
How would that work? It's not simple to set a price, when you have a fixed asset. Seems more complicated to set price on a product (ChatGPT), where the product is just a shell for something else entirely (the model), that changes by the month.
On what tokens? The ones of today's model, or tomorrow's?
The API makes it simple, yes. They make you pay per token per model. A new model has different prices. Not being able to do that is what makes it not so very simple.
Are you serious? If you used 10$ of your subscription until 10th of month and then prices changed, well, the rest of your subscription uses new prices, that's basic math.
You can use open weights models right now and ignore all this fuss. And by the time open weights models are objectively and subjectively on par with what Fable/Astra are today, the frontier labs will probably offer something newer, more capable and more expensive. The models OpenAI and Anthropic roll out clearly aren’t for people on a strict budget.
Maybe one day open weights and closed models will hit the same wall?
As a consumer paying $20 now to chatGPT where i hit those gauntlet usage messages then using Muse a lot and not receiving any such messages. Im questioning my $20 a month GPT subscription and my $5 a month Gemini (Google has enough money as Meta to make it free) subscription.
Overall Ai is doing all the software development now and we the consumers are paying for this while many are out of work and if you are out of work the US tech job market is brutal!
Ai needs to be free to use without limits and in time Im guessing it will be. That could be Meta and or another who accomplishes this. Whoever does wins this race.
If you don't pay for the product, you are the product. It's like gmail is free, but Google is harvesting all of my data to sell me ads. Meta is doing the same with Muse.
The idea is you'll always be paying that price, they'll just shrinkflate what you get and not tell you by how much. This has already been happening, now they're being a little more explicit about it.
Honestly I think the amount of value from today's frontier models is already easily at that level. And really, these models have enough knowledge and accuracy to rival the output of even very experienced engineers -- once we have better harnesses that can keep them from going off the rails without babysitting, they're coming for the $300K salaries.
> If your Pro 200 subscription was active at the eligibility cutoff or during the seven days before it, you’re eligible to keep your previous included usage allowance through Oct 29, 2026 while you have an active Pro 200 subscription.
Got it, calendar updated: switch back to Claude on the 29th.
I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel the FTC should start looking at things like this. If a well funded company can bait the market long enough to drown most everyone else out then double their price overnight (ok, 30 days..) doesn't competition just become a matter of who has the deepest pockets?
We used to break up companies (standard oil, american tobacco, both over 100 years ago) for predatory pricing, because it's illegal monopolization. The supreme court raised the standard of proof in '93 (Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson), you have to prove that the defendant sold below cost and that they stand a reasonable chance of recouping those losses, a test which most attempted predatory pricing suits fail these days. So it's pretty much the dominant strategy now- American Airlines got away with it, Walmart got away with it, Amazon got away with it, Uber got away with it many times, and now OpenAI will get away with it.
At this rate I expect end-to-end work getting done, no babysitting whatsoever. The agents should literally be calling me and talking about their problem if something needs my input.
Could hire real people in India for this cost - Fresh college under grads are paid like $250 per month or less for a month working 9hours x 5.5 to 6 days.
Edit: I meant its not worth it just for Dots Personal assistant ,also comparing to previous pricing of $200 - For $500 you got previously 5x more than previous $200 Pro pricing (which was 20x now is 10x). I can have real people who can drive or do physical deliveries etc, just on the delta.
Hmm, a super-programmer familiar with almost every framework in existence that can ship entire new apps in a day and collaborate with you realtime, or paying to train someone in a different time zone for some likely subpar work?
Yeah, with Opus 5.5, my impression is that the OpenAI $200 plan was already worse than the Anthropic $200 plan. Sol 6.1 might have tilted the balance in OpenAI's favor again, but these changes more than negate that.
I'll cancel my OpenAI plan after this billing cycle. Let's see how this plays out.
This day may go down in history as one of the worst in OpenAI's history. It's so bad it's funny.
OpenAI announced they built clones of apps that already exist, codex for normal people, and 2.5x price increase for the product that is already getting decimated by competition.
What is happening at OpenAI?
I can't imagine OpenAI not backtracking this unless Anthropic does the price hike too.
Interesting thing is that I would have expected Anthropic to do the price hike on the basis that their models are so much better right now. But it's more likely that OAI will have to backtrack regardless of what ANT does. Interesting times ahead.
If ANT does the price hike, OAI will be forced to backtrack because they're just not equal, OAI is behind. ANT would still be a much better value overall, and people will remember that it was OAI that made their ANT subscription more expensive. So the hiatus will happen. There's a lot of users that have $200 plans on both ANT and OAI. $500 leaves the slot for just 1 sub for them.
But I think the price hike is not going to happen. $500 is much, much harder to justify than $200 for the same usage. This is a horrible business decision, so Anthropic may just watch OAI bleed customers.
Yeah I think you're right I have around 500$ a mo budget for AI.
Had both a anthropic and openai then switched to 2 openai for astra. They want to capture the straddlers between both.
But this is a horrible decision. They could have eased customers into this instead of massive change. The are literally more than doubling the cost for no value add.
A smart company would have done this when they released astra or only allowed astra on 500$ plan. Or made it more sutble. I would likely have ate a 20% increase but this is over double.
It's not clear that they are hiking the price on Pro 200. Cache reads are down 75% from GPT 5.6 to GPT 6.1. So it looks like they are slashing the margin on their API and reducing the gap between subscription and API. 2x off API in exchange for committed spend is still a good deal for lots of people.
never did i think SWE would adopt MLM pay-to-play tactics, but here we are in 2026 with companies asking people to pay them $500/mo to rent their brains back to them!
$6k a year on the top monthly rolling subscription vs buying a Mac…
There’s an extra 20% of sales tax on that subscription cost in the U.K., but that’s a different matter entirely
So Anthropic releases the best model since sliced bread, and in response OpenAI cuts their usage limits in half after releasing an absolutely atrocious sol-6 version? They seem to have lost the plot entirely.
> New subscriptions that aren’t eligible for grandfathering include a lower usage allowance than previously offered with Pro 200 to reflect our increasingly efficient models.
Everyone happily paid the way for the behemoth that squeezed everyone out of competition and then started recoup the ROI aggressively, and no one recognizes oneself as a part of the problem, just like in the current AI pandemonium.
I was happy to take VC money to uber to parts of town I wouldn't have otherwise for that period of time. Only my local bar lost out on selling me like maybe 20 drinks over the year or so.
I'll be the first to bemoan these companies but there are many, many locations where even with today's higher prices and level of service they come out way cheaper and way more reliable than incumbents.
It's getting shitty, I agree, but still feels like a net improvement to where we were over a decade ago.
Yeah, I mean currently a lot of people still prefer using 5.6 Sol over Astra for implementation tasks. If 6.1 hasn't fixed output alignment (vs task completion) this is a huge price increase for those wanting to keep using 5.6 Sol...
Yeah sorry I misunderstood you.
And yeah I bet that it is the cerebras collaboration although they didn't explicitly say this, maybe their own chip is fast enough for this inference speed? But I could only take a guess if its this or that
I had the 200 USD subscription for a bit, with the change to it I'm downgrading to 100 USD and might move back to Anthropic in entirety since they fixed the Opus 5 slop writing issue with Opus 5.5 (though their 200 USD plan is also a lie with bad marketing, around 1.7x weekly tokens). Or maybe just keep two 100 USD subscriptions and see how they compare.
It's crazy that people will have to pay 500 USD for only slightly more (and faster) usage of basically what I already enjoyed for the past few weeks. And even I got close to hitting weekly limits doing regular development across a bunch of codebases (admittedly it was on Astra High).
I feel like even the 500 USD subscriptions are not "get out of my face with those limits for all single developer use cases" (not even that many overnight tasks, I might have run a few here and there, and not even full 8 hours of work a day), but soon you'll have people needing multiple of those 500 USD subscriptions, unless they pull off crazy token efficiency gains for how the models work.
Guess the economics are catching up to AI companies, sucks that I don't have a bunch of money to burn every month.
I've been an OpenAI booster since for a while they've been less user/community hostile and culty than Anthropic, and their models have been competitive and more pleasant/honest to work with while being much more efficient, but between this and the edge Opus 5.5 has I'm switching, sadly.
Yeah no. $200 was the top for me. Which doesn't super matter to me, I pretty much only use luna. I can't tell the difference between luna vs sol/astra other than those larger models do more ambitious things that I don't ask for.
> If your Pro 200 subscription was active at the eligibility cutoff or during the seven days before it, you’re eligible to keep your previous included usage allowance through Oct 29, 2026 while you have an active Pro 200 subscription.
> After that date, your subscription will move to the lower included usage allowance. Your subscription price stays at $200/month.
Imagine buying this shit for a year, upfront, and then having to deal with this. Nice.
Price escalation and reduction in features just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth as a consumer, and moreso, a human.
I want them to succeed as a business so I can use their products, but trust does erode over time. I wish they would realize this and value their customer more.
Yea, the $500 package is likely a rebranded $200 from a few months ago. Keep in mind all providers have been cutting token allowances for their subs for a few months now
At this price points (including the reduction of usage on the Pro 200 and Pro 100 subscriptions), more people will be looking buying their own hardware and running with open weight AIs. $6000 per year is the threshold
Does it matter when I burn through all my Fable subscription usage in about a day? Astra is much better on efficiency, but doesn’t last a week either. With the new subscription limits, it’ll end up being like Fable.
The performance changes between models are almost static. Recently, GPT has shifted almost entirely toward token efficiency.
Astra is good at making 3D assets, but realistically its coding was not as good as GPT 5.6 Sol.
Have we reached a point where getting better at one thing means starting to get worse at another?
This announcement is the worst one yet.
Nerfing existing usage
A more expensive top-tier plan
Showing off how slow Dots is right in the demo video
And GPT Space—are they telling us to use it instead of Notion or what...
Overall, throughout the entire announcement, everything OpenAI wants me to look forward to just leaves me, as a developer, disappointed.
Yep. It's hitting limits because models have effectively reached the logical endpoint of how "precise" their outputs can become. In order to overcome this they need to either a) get excellent at outputting and working with massive codebases (10+ million loc) since a singificant % of systems simply cannot be done in less than that (the language itself isn't expressive enough) or b) reach the next stage of intelligence where the models are somehow able to output sequences that can solve vast complex problems with a very narrow output. Option b isn't really possible (various statistical/computational fundamental limitations forbid it) and option A is _insanely_ expensive. Which is why all of the demos the frontier labs have been pushing out are either really impressive one shot demos where the model is able to take a concise input and produce something great on its own, or very long running internal sessions where they claim to do something vast with minimal oversight (NavierStokes, C compiler, Bun rewrite).
Totally disagree. Newer models are doing much more advanced things in domains like math, programming, and cybersecurity.
I don't see why a company charging more for less is a surprise or would lead to thinking that AI models have reached their limits. Thats an incredible claim and it would need incredible evidence. Astra is much more capable than Luna. Luna being 'good enough' for most of my daily work just shows how strong Luna is, not that Astra isn't much more capable.
As models get more and more capable, they will only appear to be at the extremes. You'll need to see them solving more Millenium problems to notice a difference as the tide is continuously raised for all models as well.
Decent(-ish), but doesn't provide good value for the money, sadly. They still refuse to tell you exactly how much usage you're paying for. My original suggestion a few months ago was to provide a $500/$1000 tier but make it _unlimited_, which this doesn't appear to be.
Very cool how I'm supposed to feel good about paying $200/mo (a VERY expensive subscription!) for months, just to be told that in the near (but not immediate) future this subscription will lose half of its value and then I'll have to pay 2.5x as much to get 1.25x the value I used to get.
What they’re doing with billions of tokens every week, beats me. But these users absolutely do exist.
reply