Summarizer

Subscription Value Debate

Arguments about whether $20-200 plans provide adequate value, complaints about hitting limits in minutes, comparisons of different plan tiers, and discussion of pricing psychology

← Back to Claude Opus 4.7

The transition from enthusiast to frustrated critic is a recurring theme among users who grapple with opaque token limits that can drain a $20 session's value in mere minutes. This has fueled a contentious debate over whether entry-level tiers are being intentionally "nerfed" to push users toward $200 plans, yet even top-tier subscribers report feeling nickeled-and-dimed by new features being monetized outside their premium packages. While some defend the immense utility of low-cost AI assistance, a growing number of developers are migrating to competitors like Codex, citing a preference for predictable performance over the "anxiety-inducing" usage bars and perceived "enshittification" of current flagship models. Ultimately, the latest model updates have intensified these concerns, as increased reasoning capabilities paradoxically result in higher token consumption, leaving many to conclude that the era of unsustainable, cheap frontier AI is rapidly coming to an end.

56 comments tagged with this topic

View on HN · Topics
Sure, but that blackbox was giving me a lot of value last month.
View on HN · Topics
'Hey Claude, these tokens are utter unrelated bollocks, but obviously we still want to charge the user for them regardless. Please construct a plausible explanation as to why we should still be able to do that.'
View on HN · Topics
Just last week. They cut off openclaw. And they added a price increased fast mode. And they announced today new features that are not included with max subscriptions. They are short 5GW roughly and scrambling to add it.
View on HN · Topics
I used Opus 4.7 for about 15 minutes on the auto effort setting. It nicely implemented two smallish features, and already consumed 100% of my session limit on the $20 plan. See you again in five hours.
View on HN · Topics
Same. I stopped my Pro subscription yesterday after entering the week with 70% of my tokens used by Monday morning (on light, small weekend projects, things I had worked on in the past and barely noticed a dent in usage.) Support was... unhelpful. It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. But even that wasn't the trigger to leave, it was the attitude Support showed. I figure, if you mess up as badly as Anthropic has, you should at least show some effort towards your customers. Instead I just got a mass of standardised replies, even after the thread replied I'd be escalated to a human. Nothing can sour you on a company more. I'm forgiving to bugs, we've all been there, but really annoyed by indifference and unhelpful form replies with corporate uselessness. So if 4.7 is here? I'd prefer they forget models and revert the harness to its January state. Even then, I've already moved to Codex as of a few days ago, and I won't be maintaining two subscriptions, it's a move. It has its own issues, it's clear, but I'm getting work done. That's more than I can say for Claude.
View on HN · Topics
> It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. You were enthusiastic because it was a great product at an unsustainable price. Its clear that Claude is now harnessing their model because giving access to their full model is too expensive for the $20/m that consumers have settled on as the price point they want to pay. I wrote a more in depth analysis here, there's probably too much to meaningfully summarize in a comment: https://sustainableviews.substack.com/p/the-era-of-models-is...
View on HN · Topics
I agree with what you what you have written, which is why I would never pay a subscription to an external AI provider. I prefer to run inference on my own HW, with a harness that I control, so I can choose myself what compromise between speed and the quality of the results is appropriate for my needs. When I have complete control, resulting in predictable performance, I can work more efficiently, even with slower HW and with somewhat inferior models, than when I am at the mercy of an external provider.
View on HN · Topics
I used the $60/mo subscription and I bet most developers get access to AI agents via their company, and there was no difference. They should have reduced the rate limits, or offered a new model, anything except silently reduce the quality of their flagship product to reduce cost. The cost of switching is too low for them to be able to get away with the standard enshittification playbook. It takes all of 5 minutes to get a Codex subscription and it works almost exactly the same, down to using the same commands for most actions.
View on HN · Topics
Seems very short term. Like how cheap Uber was initially. Like Claude was before! Eventually OpenAI will need to stop burning money.
View on HN · Topics
Is that 2x still going on I thought that ended in early April
View on HN · Topics
Different plan. The old 2x has been discontinued, and the bonus is now (temporarily) available for the new $100 plan users in an effort, presumably, to entice them away from Anthropic.
View on HN · Topics
For the $200 users, it never ended.
View on HN · Topics
It’s for Pro users only, I think the 2x is up to May 31.
View on HN · Topics
They did it again to "celebrate" the release of the $100 plan.
View on HN · Topics
On plus?
View on HN · Topics
Their top tier plan got a 3x limit boost. This has been the first week ever where I haven't run out of tokens.
View on HN · Topics
I have both Claude and OpenAI, side by side. I would say sonnet 46 still beats gpt 54 for coding (at least in my use case) But after about 45 minutes I'm out of my window, so I use openai for the next 4 hours and I can't even reach my limit.
View on HN · Topics
Vote with your dollar. Ask others to do the same and explain why. If we all did this, it might matter. There’s not a lot else an individual can do.
View on HN · Topics
Vote with your wallet, just like Americans.
View on HN · Topics
It works better, until you run out of tokens. Running out of tokens is something that used to never happen to me, but this month now regularly happens. Maybe I could avoid running out of tokens by turning off 1M tokens and max effort, but that's a cure worse than the disease IMO.
View on HN · Topics
for me there is zero value there.
View on HN · Topics
Yep, it just feels terrible, the usage bars give me anxiety, and I think that's in their interest as they definitely push me towards paying for higher limits. Won't do that, though.
View on HN · Topics
Same for me. I cancelled my subscription and will be moving to Codex for the time being. Tokens are way too opaque and Claude was way smarter for my work a couple of months ago.
View on HN · Topics
Yep, I'll wait for the GPT answer to this. If we're lucky OpenAI will release a new GPT 5.5 or whatever model in the next few days, just like the last round. I have been getting better results out of codex on and off for months. It's more "careful" and systematic in its thinking. It makes less "excuses" and leaves less race conditions and slop around. And the actual codex CLI tool is better written, less buggy and faster. And I can use the membership in things like opencode etc without drama. For March I decided to give Claude Code / Opus a chance again. But there's just too much variance there. And then they started to play games with limits, and then OpenAI rolled out a $100 plan to compete with Anthropic's. I'm glad to see the competition but I think Anthropic has pissed in the well too much. I do think they sent me something about a free month and maybe I will use that to try this model out though.
View on HN · Topics
I’ve been on the Claude Code train for a while but decided to try Codex last week after they announced the $100 USD Pro plan. I’ve been pretty happy with it! One thing I immediately like more than Claude is that Codex seems much more transparent about what it’s thinking and what it wants to do next. I find it much easier to interrupt or jump in the middle if things are going to wrong direction. Claude Code has been slowly turning into this mysterious black box, wiping out terminal context any time it compacts a conversation (which I think is their hacky way of dealing with terminal flickering issues — which is still happening, 14 months later), going out of the way to hide thought output, and then of course the whole performance issues thing. Excited to try 4.7 out, but man, Codex (as a harness at least) is a stark contrast to Claude Code.
View on HN · Topics
I've been using Claude and Codex in tandem ($100 CC, $20 Codex), and have made heavy use of claude-co-commands [0] to make them talk. Outside of the last 1-2 weeks (which we now have confirmation YET AGAIN that Claude shits the fucking bed in the run-up to a new model release), I usually will put Claude on max + /plan to gin up a fever dream to implement. When the plan is presented, I tell it to /co-validate with Codex, which tends to fill in many implementation gaps. Claude then codes the amended plan and commits, then I have a Codex skill that reviews the commit for gaps, missed edge cases, incorrect implementation, missed optimizations, etc, and fix them. This had been working quite well up until the beginning of the month, Claude more or less got CTE, and after a week of that I swapped to $100 Codex, $20 CC plans. Now I'm using co-validation a lot less and just driving primarily via Codex. When Claude works, it provides some good collaborative insights and counter-points, but Codex at the very least is consistently predictable (for text-oriented, data-oriented stuff -- I don't use either for designing or implementing frontend / UI / etc). As always, YMMV! [0] https://github.com/SnakeO/claude-co-commands
View on HN · Topics
This more or less mimics a flow that I had fairly good results from -- but I'm unwilling to pay for both right now unless I had a client or employer willing to foot the bill. Claude Code as "author" and a $20 Codex as reviewer/planner/tester has worked for me to squeeze better value out of the CC plan. But with the new $100 codex plan, and with the way Anthropic seemed to nerf their own $100 plan, I'm not doing this anymore.
View on HN · Topics
Just as likely it's going to be "Oh, you want <use case the thing's actually good at>? Let me introduce your wallet to my hoover."
View on HN · Topics
Perhaps on the 10x plan. It went through my $20 plan's session limit in 15 minutes, implementing two smallish features in an iOS app. That was with the effort on auto. It looks like full time work would require the 20x plan.
View on HN · Topics
I know limits have been nerfed, but c'mon it's $20. The fact that you were able to implement two smallish features in an iOS app in 15 minutes seems like incredible value. At $20/month your daily cost is $0.67 cents a day. Are you really complaining that you were able to get it to implement two small features in your app for 67 cents?
View on HN · Topics
No, I am happy with the results. For a first test, it did seem like it burned through the usage even faster than usual. GitHub Copilot’s 7.5x billing factor over 3x with Opus 4.6 seems to suggest it indeed consumes more tokens. Now I’m just waiting for OpenAI to show their hand before deciding which of the plans to upgrade from the $20 to the $100 plan.
View on HN · Topics
> It looks like full time work would require the 20x plan. Full time work where you have the LLM do all the code has always required the larger plans. The $20/month plans are for occasional use as an assistant. If you want to do all of your work through the LLM you have to pay for the higher tiers. The Codex $20/month plan has higher limits, but in my experience the lower quality output leaves me rewriting more of it anyway so it's not a net win.
View on HN · Topics
Have they effectively communicated what a 20x or 10x Claude subscription actually means? And with Claude 4.7 increasing usage by 1.35x does that mean a 20x plan is now really a 13x plan (no token increase on the subscription) or a 27x plan (more tokens given to compensate for more computer cost) relative to Claude Opus 4.6?
View on HN · Topics
a few months ago it was for weekly: pro = 5m tokens, 5x = 41m tokens, 20x = 83m tokens making 5x the best value for the money (8.33x over pro for max 5x). this information may be outdated though, and doesn't apply to the new on peak 5h multipliers. anything that increases usage just burns through that flat token quota faster.
View on HN · Topics
wait. that's insanity. where did you get those numbers from? the 5x plan is obviously the right place to be...
View on HN · Topics
someone did the math and posted it somewhere, I forgot where, searching for it again just provides the numbers i remember seeing. at the time i remembered what it was like on pro vs 5x and it felt correct. again, it may not be representative of today.
View on HN · Topics
I'm on the max $200 plan, so maybe its that?
View on HN · Topics
Same, if we're punished for being on the highest tier... what is anthropic even doing.
View on HN · Topics
/model claude-opus-4.7 ⎿ Model 'claude-opus-4.7' not found Just love that I'm paying $200 for models features they announce I can't use! Related features that were announced I have yet to be able to use: $ claude --enable-auto-mode auto mode is unavailable for your plan $ claude /memory Auto-dream: on · /dream to run Unknown skill: dream
View on HN · Topics
Thanks, but not working for me, and I'm on the $200 max plan Edit: Not 30 seconds later, claude code took an update and now it works!
View on HN · Topics
> They don't have demand for the price it would require for inference. citation needed. I find it hard to believe; I think there are more than enough people willing to spend $100/Mtok for frontier capabilities to dedicate a couple racks or aisles.
View on HN · Topics
It's been a little while since I cared all that much about the models because they work well enough already. It's the tooling and the service around the model that affects my day-to-day more. I would guess a lot of the enterprise customers would be willing to pay a larger subscription price (1.5x or 2x) if it means that they would have significantly higher stability and uptime. 5% more uptime would gain more trust than 5% more on a gamified model metrics. Anthropic used to position itself as more of the enterprise option and still does, but their issues recently seems like they are watering down the experience to appease the $20 dollar customer rather than the $200 dollar one. As painful as it is personally, I'd expect that they'd get more benefit long term from raising prices and gaining trust than short term gaining customers seeking utility at a $20 dollar price point.
View on HN · Topics
Interestingly github-copilot is charging 2.5x as much for opus 4.7 prompts as they charged for opus 4.6 prompts (7.5x instead of 3x). And they're calling this "promotional pricing" which sounds a lot like they're planning to go even higher. Note they charge per-prompt and not per-token so this might in part be an expectation of more tokens per prompt. https://github.blog/changelog/2026-04-16-claude-opus-4-7-is-...
View on HN · Topics
> Opus 4.7 will replace Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 Promotional pricing that will probably be 9x when promotion ends, and soon to be the only Opus option on github, that's insane
View on HN · Topics
> Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type. Second, Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. I guess that means bad news for our subscription usage.
View on HN · Topics
just my perspective: i pay $20/month and i hit usage limits regularly. have never experienced performance degradation. in fact i have been very happy with performance lately. my experience has never matched that of those saying model has been intentionally degraded. have been using claude a long time now (3 years). i do find usage limits frustrating. should prob fork out more...
View on HN · Topics
Nobody I've seen in the comments is basing it on 4.7 performance. They're basing it on how unpleasant March and early April was on the Claude Code coding plans with 4.6. Which, from my experience, it was. I'm interested in seeing how 4.7 performs. But I'm also unwilling to pony up cash for a month to do so. And frankly dissatisfied with their customer service and with the actual TUI tool itself. It's not team sports, my friend. You don't have to pick a side. These guys are taking a lot of money from us. Far more than I've ever spent on any other development tooling.
View on HN · Topics
What a joke Opus 4.7 at max is. I gave it an agentic software project to critically review. It claimed gemini-3.1-pro-preview is wrong model name, the current is 2.5. I said it's a claim not verified. It offered to create a memory. I said it should have a better procedure, to avoid poisoning the process with unverified claims, since memories will most likely be ignored by it. It agreed. It said it doesn't have another procedure, and it then discovered three more poisonous items in the critical review. I said that this is a fabrication defect, it should not have been in production at all as a model. It agreed, it said it can help but I would need to verify its work. I said it's footing me with the bill and the audit. We amicably parted ways. I would have accepted a caveman-style vocabulary but not a lobotomized model. I'm looking forward to LobotoClaw. Not really.
View on HN · Topics
Just before the end is this one-liner: > the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type Does this mean that we get a 35% price increase for a 5% efficiency gain? I'm not sure that's worth it.
View on HN · Topics
Been on 10/15 hours a day sessions since january 31st. Last few days were horrendous. Thinking about dropping 20x.
View on HN · Topics
> Opus 4.7 is a direct upgrade to Opus 4.6, but two changes are worth planning for because they affect token usage. First, Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type. Second, Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. This is concerning & tone-deaf especially given their recent change to move Enterprise customers from $xxx/user/month plans to the $20/mo + incremental usage. IMO the pursuit of ultraintelligence is going to hurt Anthropic, and a Sonnet 5 release that could hit near-Opus 4.6 level intelligence at a lower cost would be received much more favorably. They were already getting extreme push-back on the CC token counting and billing changes made over the past quarter.
View on HN · Topics
Uh oh: > The new /ultrareview slash command produces a dedicated review session that reads through changes and flags bugs and design issues that a careful reviewer would catch. We’re giving Pro and Max Claude Code users three free ultrareviews to try it out. More monetization a tier above max subscriptions. I just pointed openclaw at codex after a daily opus bill of $250. As Anthropic keeps pushing the pricing envelope wider it makes room for differentiation, which is good. But I wish oAI would get a capable agentic model out the door that pushes back on pricing. Ps I know that Anthropic underbought compute and so we are facing at least a year of this differentiated pricing from them, but still..ouch
View on HN · Topics
on Tuesday, with 4.6, I waited for my 5 hour window to reset, asked it to resume, and it burned up all my tokens for the next 5 hour window and ran for less than 10 seconds. I’ve never cancelled a subscription so fast.
View on HN · Topics
Backlash on HN for Anthropic adjusting usage limits is insane. There's almost no discussion about the model, just people complaining about their subscription.
View on HN · Topics
Who cares about a new model you can’t even use?
View on HN · Topics
> In Claude Code, we’ve raised the default effort level to xhigh for all plans. Does it also mean faster to getting our of credits?