[▲ Vercel Community](/) · [Categories](/categories) · [Latest](/latest) · [Top](/top) · [Live](/live) [Feedback](/c/feedback/8) # How many people canceled their V0 plans because of the new pricing? 1196 views · 72 likes · 35 posts Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-20 · ♥ 9 Let's create a thread for all the canceled accounts because of the new pricing. I canceled mine the minute I saw the announcement and then when my plan switched to free I tried the free 5$ and it was gone in 10 messages half were fixing bugs it created. it's like a 100X price increase. improved pricing is a joke that had to be meant only for internal right? It only improved for Vercel, not users. Amy Egan (@amyegan) · 2025-05-20 · ♥ 1 I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience. If you have any specific chat examples to share, please let me know so we can investigate possible areas for improvement. I also want to share some additional context about the pricing update that @jared shared on X/Twitter: https://x.com/jaredpalmer/status/1922711793895604264 Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-21 · ♥ 9 Amy, your response sounds like the standard 'we hear you' PR line, but it doesn't address the core problem. Let's be blunt: with message-based pricing, Vercel took the hit if v0 spat out garbage. Now, with token pricing, we pay for every single error, every bug, every piece of broken code v0 generates. And it generates a lot of them. You guys point to competitors charging '$0.25c+'. So your solution is to make our actual costs feel like $0.60+, often more, for the same (or worse) output? You're marketing this as 'improved pricing,' but improved for whom? Certainly not for users who are now footing the bill for v0's imperfections. I had one message cost me over a DOLLAR just to get a simple tabs component error for Shadcn. A dollar for a bug. How is that justifiable under an 'improved' model? Frankly, tools like Cursor and others are doing way more, for way less money, and aren't charging me extra when their tool messes up. So, instead of 'investigating improvements,' how about you tell us why we're now paying a premium for v0 to make mistakes? Because right now, this new pricing feels like a penalty, not a service, and definitely not an improvement for your customers. Amy Egan (@amyegan) · 2025-05-21 · ♥ 1 I really want to make sure we're not missing details that can help us improve. If you can share the IDs of the chats where you saw $0.60+ and $1+ outputs, that would help us get more info about why it happened and how we can make v0 more efficient and reliable. You mentioned the cost of bugs and bugfixes, but is there anything else you want me to make sure the team knows about? Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-22 · ♥ 5 While I appreciate the offer to look at specific chat IDs, I prefer not to share the details of the project I was working on. Frankly, that also feels like it misses the larger point. The issue isn't just that one or two of my chats were excessively expensive; it's that the entire pricing model has shifted to make users financially liable for v0's inherent imperfections. Shouldn't your teams already be able to track error rates internally? For example, can't you see every time v0 generates code that results in immediate errors, or when it gets stuck in a generation loop, or fails to complete a response? Shouldn't there be a more direct way for users to flag a problematic generation without having to individually submit chat IDs after the fact and hope for a micro-investigation? The core sentiment here, which I know I'm not alone in feeling, is that **we're effectively paying to beta test v0 under a bait-and-switch pricing model.** We were drawn in by one value proposition, and now, suddenly, the rules have changed to be drastically more expensive and punitive for normal, iterative development – especially when that development involves v0 itself making mistakes. You asked if there's 'anything else you want me to make sure the team knows about' besides the cost of bugs and bugfixes. **Yes, absolutely. The team needs to understand:** 1. **This Feels Like a Bait and Switch:** The "improved pricing" narrative is directly contradicted by user experience. We signed up for X, and are now getting Y at a 10x-100x perceived cost. 2. **We Are Not Willing to Pay Premium Rates to Beta Test:** If v0 is still in a phase where it frequently generates errors, loops, or unusable output, charging users per token for those failures is unacceptable. That's a cost Vercel should be absorbing, or the pricing should be dramatically lower to reflect the current reliability. 3. **Lack of User Control Over Token Burn:** When v0 makes a mistake, it dictates the token burn, not us. We have no fine-grained control to stop a runaway generation that's clearly going off the rails. 4. **The Erosion of Trust:** This sudden, drastic change, marketed deceptively, has severely damaged user trust in Vercel. It makes us wary of future changes and the stability of any Vercel platform. 5. **The Sheer Volume of Negative Feedback:** This isn't an isolated opinion. Your forums are overflowing with users expressing these exact same frustrations. Is the team truly absorbing the scale of this backlash, or are they dismissing it as a vocal minority? Focusing on individual chat IDs, while perhaps useful for your internal debugging, sidesteps the fundamental, systemic issues with this new pricing policy and the way it has been implemented. We need you to address the policy itself and the widespread negative impact it's having on your user base, who feel like they've been duped into paying for an unfinished product at premium rates. Pauline P. Narvas (@pawlean) · 2025-05-23 · ♥ 1 Thanks again for the feedback! Cross-posting this reply: https://community.vercel.com/t/updated-v0-pricing/10612/79 Gabriel - DF (@xnwaltergabriel-1118) · 2025-05-23 · ♥ 8 [quote="Pauline P. Narvas, post:8, topic:11166, username:pawlean"] Thanks again for the feedback! Cross-posting this reply: [/quote] **Stop pretending this is about fairness, it's about squeezing every last cent from your users.** You say charging per token is more “transparent” and “reliable,” but **you’re charging like you have a stable, enterprise-level product, and v0 is *far* from that.** The token system is **completely abused, far from functional, and it punishes users constantly.** It still delivers **broken code, unfinished outputs, and requires multiple fix prompts to do what it should’ve done in one go.** And now we’re paying *extra* for every one of those fixes? **They need to pause this token system immediately until they have a real solution, because users shouldn’t have to keep giving away their money while waiting for them to figure things out.** You’re not solving the problem, you’re monetizing it. Don’t compare yourself to “competitors charging $0.25 per message” when your platform burns **over $2 worth of credits trying to fix its own mess.** The issue isn’t just the model, **it’s that you’re not ready for it, and the price is absurdly high.** If you genuinely want to listen to the community, **stop hiding behind PR responses and actually address the real concerns, quality, stability, and the predatory way this pricing punishes users for *your* flaws.** We’re not asking for magic, we’re asking for a product that works, and doesn’t charge us for cleaning up its own mistakes. **This isn’t just about “use v0 or don’t, no one’s forcing you.”** It’s about delivering a product that works, respects its users, and doesn’t make us pay for mistakes we didn’t make. If you want us to keep trusting v0, **stop treating your users like an easy cash source and start fixing the real problems.** We’re not asking for favors, we’re demanding quality and respect. Forgery23 (@shcordon-gmailcom) · 2025-05-23 · ♥ 8 Fully agree. $20 burned in 2 days debugging v0 issues. Absolute waste of money this platform now. No longer fits in what I consider to be my AI stake. What an absolute shame. I've spent months invested in this platform Sparkpressstudios (@sparkpressstudios) · 2025-05-23 · ♥ 3 The tech / ai is just not there yet to justify the token costs. I left replit because of the .25 per agent checkpoint which their checkpoints / amount of them increased. Now v0 is charging per token and the amount of issues that arise and having to restore older code results use in lost money. We're cancelling our plans and using up the rest of our credits and packing up unfortunately. Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-23 · ♥ 1 I don't think you read anything here based on this Desolate1998 (@desolate1998) · 2025-05-24 · ♥ 4 After using around 2$ to try and get it to fix a bug, I am using the last of the credits and pulling my code. The new pricing is awful and a horrible experience. I am sure this pricing change has had nothing but a negative impact on the company. Until they do come up with a better solution. I feel like it was good fun run, I had fun. Good luck to the v0 team and only the best moving forward. Yhimzn (@yhimzn) · 2025-05-25 · ♥ 2 Regaining lost trust takes more than ten times the effort and time it took to build it in the first place. A sense of betrayal leaves a lasting mark. The recent pricing changes you implemented, the message they conveyed, the abruptness of the shift with no regard for user sentiment, and the way communication was handled within the community—these factors have completely eroded trust in the V0 product. Even if we continue to use the service, it is difficult to do so without the constant fear of being exposed to further unexpected costs or disadvantages. And yet, I still love V0. I sincerely hope the pricing model will return to something we can believe in again. Ivan Prizon (@integrare) · 2025-05-25 · ♥ 1 I will for sure. Unreasonable prices with mediocre responses, besides all, that's the only logical path. All that for a bad business development team. RIP v0. Ivan Prizon (@integrare) · 2025-05-25 · ♥ 1 Even with one dollar per message? That makes no sense with these responses. I will need to sell oil to track this prices. Bootybty (@bootybty) · 2025-05-25 · ♥ 3 Wasn't a hard decision to cancel I must admit.. Yhimzn (@yhimzn) · 2025-05-26 · ♥ 1 This pricing change also made me wonder if they meant to limit this service only to rich oil sheikhs. But since everyone makes mistakes – 'to err is human,' after all – I believe it's important to give them a chance to earn back our trust. I'd rather bet on them reconsidering their decision than on striking oil myself. Seifmoustafa516 Gmailcom (@seifmoustafa516-gmai) · 2025-05-26 · ♥ 1 I’m unsubscribing because the new pricing model is simply unacceptable. It’s a steep increase with very limited usage included, and it doesn’t offer fair value. This change makes it hard to justify continuing with the service. Yhimzn (@yhimzn) · 2025-05-26 · ♥ 1 I have canceled my subscription and am now preparing to organize my files and transition to Cursor. Every night, I stayed up late dreaming of releasing a service built with v0. Just now, I discovered that the feature to download files as a ZIP has been removed. I don't understand why this platform keeps making changes that only make things more inconvenient for users. Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-26 · ♥ 1 https://community.vercel.com/t/updated-v0-pricing/10612/113 everyone make sure to vote here c0dex666 (@c0dex666) · 2025-05-26 · ♥ 1 I just upgraded to pro for $20 and it was gone after just a few prompts, what a waste !!!! Ct-d (@comunicacion-ct) · 2025-05-27 · ♥ 1 Renewed today and cancelled after 3 prompts what a waste and bullshit is this, want a refund Grey (@lastmile1) · 2025-05-27 if anyone is still on one old plan and hasn't switched yet run that bill up on the big model, you have 150+ messages per day, so make them feel them burn Itmanner (@itmanner) · 2025-05-28 · ♥ 1 Six messages cost $20, is my money blown by the wind? Ghostcookss (@ghostcookss) · 2025-05-28 · ♥ 1 Canceled my subscription, trying to squeeze money out there customers. One message took over 2 dollars and it failed. What am i supposed to do now with all my projects? This change will be the downfall of v0. People will eventually find a cheaper and better alternative. already looking into Cursor and into moving all my domains and projects away from this horrible company. Tesler (@cashio1948-1107) · 2025-05-28 · ♥ 1 This is absolutely depressing. I can't keep working on my app. Tried to make a small change, which cost me $30 just to find out it isn't woking. I can't debug it with v0. It will end up costing me $500 just to make a small fix. Completely unusable. I'm churning. AVW (@avw) · 2025-05-29 · ♥ 1    Really bad experience today, debugging and problem solving killed my monthly usage within the fist hour. 32 messages to be exact. THIS IS INSANE!! Yhimzn (@yhimzn) · 2025-05-29 · ♥ 2 I read the announcement from the V0 team at Vercel. It seems they never really got around to reading our comments—at least not to the end. They insisted on defending the fairness of their pricing, despite the fact that many people repeatedly pointed out that *pricing itself* wasn’t the main issue. They should have released the more affordable “v0-small” model **together** with the Unlimited Plan, or at the very least, communicated it much earlier. I truly felt V0 was a great service and something I wanted to support long term. So yes, this announcement was a real disappointment. That said, I’ve successfully moved to Cursor and Claude. I also tried out [emergent.sh](https://app.emergent.sh), which supports Vibe Coding and offered an experience even better than V0—at least, the V0 we had last month. In a competitive industry, I believe the best monetization strategy is earning the trust of your users. I’ve made a quiet vow to run my own service in a way that never makes people feel like this. Ivan Prizon (@integrare) · 2025-05-30 · ♥ 1 Do you have an invite to share from this Emergent? hafidium (@hafidium) · 2025-05-30 canceled my plans. less than 40 msg for $20 is insane 7high (@7high) · 2025-05-31 $20 for 40 messages, 20 of which are code where the v0 itself sends bugs or removes parts of the code and we pay for AI errors Kasu (@lodos3) · 2025-05-31 · ♥ 1 We are praying that these issues are to be mitigated within fairness of the community with further added clear view usage metres and better invoice allocation per response, this will allow us to use the AI with rationed prompting, ensuring our instructions reduce the amount of deviant AI code. Of course as we move forward, these errors will be lesser...Vercel are dependant on our stress testing and for a while were taking a full hit brunt in a Lost Leader scenario. Now that is over and that the transition has happened (be it a painful one) we can continue to provide feedback on the current setup. The staff are aware that these errors are causing negative feedback from their users and they plan to dish out the small model soon too. Which brings me to my next request from the team, a more indepth breakdown of what each model does and what we are dealing with. Are we iterating acroas multiple models ? How does the small model compare to something like cursors auto mode (which picks the best for the scenario). Vercels main priority right now should be mitigating the error cost and greatly improving the AI. We appreciate you allowing us to iterate project after project at your cost, but do understand that this is a cost you needed to brunt as a company to become what you are today, so take responsibility for that and come up with some proper announcements that do not deflate your old user base. Ive stopped my subscription and will happily return with some of the above implemented and at the least, addressed coherently. Sid 9935 (@sid-9935) · 2025-06-02 Dropping mine too. What a crap pricing to fix the bugs TheCoder007 (@royn-5589) · 2025-06-05 · ♥ 1 They just don't care, they are on a mission and think this is a good decision for the company and they think they are handling everything perfectly. And that everything is fair in their eyes. It seems they didn`t learn from Unity and Dockers example. Between me and our multiple teams around the world we were having like 80+ accounts. All will disappear in 6 days. And that is just the beginning. Cursor and Windsurf will be really happy with this decision..... ## What's Likely to Happen Next **Immediate (30 Days):** * Migration acceleration as users test alternatives * Community sentiment poisoning through negative reviews * Enterprise prospect hesitation and delayed decisions **Medium-term (3-6 Months):** * Churn materialization as contracts expire * Competitive recruitment targeting your users * Media attention covering the controversy **Long-term (6+ Months):** * Market share erosion in AI development tooling * Enterprise sales impact from damaged reputation * Expensive marketing costs to regain trust ## Strategic Implications This isn't just a pricing adjustment. It's a strategic inflection point that could determine V0's future in the competitive AI development tool market. Developer tools live or die on community trust. Once broken, trust takes years to rebuild and immediately impacts word-of-mouth marketing, enterprise sales credibility, and community contributions. YW (@yallaweb) · 2025-06-19 As a university teacher, I have actively promoted the use of V0—completely free of charge—to over 1,000 people, including students, teachers, and researchers over the past few months. However, due to the new pricing model, I’ve stopped recommending the platform. I believe it’s time for a collective cancellation of V0 subscriptions to ensure our concerns are heard. Anthony 1530 (@anthony-1530) · 2025-07-09 Who are the competitors just jacking up their price? I would like to try them. If their models are less error prone and not as poorly tuned as v0, it sounds like it's worth it. Please list competitors.
