Ah, so its not just me. Recently v0 has completly forgotten how to impliment an sql database. It breaks it every time I want to change something.
1 Like
To the Vercel/v0 Team: Letâs Talk About Respect, Transparency, and Basic Fucking Business Ethics (Or the Utter Lack Thereof)*
This isnât just about v0âs new pricing. This is a clear, undeniable pattern. First, your hosting costs became a meme for how to alienate developers, and now v0 is following the exact same playbook: a sudden, astronomical price hike wrapped in the thinnest veneer of âimprovement,â followed by an avalanche of user outrage that you seem perfectly content to weather with condescending silence and pre-canned PR platitudes.
We fill out your feedback forms â those digital black holes. We pour our frustrations, our data, our time into these community threads. And whatâs the Vercel response? Generic corporate non-answers, more forms, or radio silence until you ram through another âupdateâ that proves you werenât listening, didnât care, or simply donât understand the real-world impact of your decisions on the people who actually use and pay for your products.
You have the audacity to market this as âimproved pricing.â Improved for whom, Vercel? Spell it out. Because it damn sure isnât for us, the paying customers who are now watching our credits evaporate in hoursânot days, not weeksâoften for v0 to generate absolute garbage, get stuck in infinite loops, or simply fail to complete basic tasks. Weâre paying over a DOLLAR for a single component error, while your marketing drones chirp about âvalue.â Thatâs not an âimprovementâ; itâs a predatory, insulting lie, and itâs clear you think your user base is stupid.
We understand you need to make money. Weâre developers; we get it. But thereâs a universe of difference between sustainable, fair pricing and the blatant, shameless fleecing of your customers. This isnât business; this is a shakedown. Are you even reading this tidal wave of negative sentiment? Do you even care about the thousands of loyal users, the early adopters, the ones who championed v0, that you are now actively, aggressively pushing away?
If you want a shred of respect left, if you want any of us to even consider remaining customers, then STOP THE CORPORATE BULLSHIT AND SHOW US THE REAL, UNFILTERED DATA:
-
Whatâs the actual average cost to Vercel for a productive user session under the old model?
-
What is the actual median and average token consumption (and thus cost to users) for common, successful v0 tasks now? Not your cherry-picked best-case scenarios.
-
Crucially, how many of our paid tokens are being consumed by v0âs internal errors, its retries, its endless loops, its failed generations, its inability to follow instructions? We are paying for your productâs bugs and inefficiencies.
-
Prove this isnât just a desperate, ill-conceived profit grab. Show us the economic modeling that justifies this catastrophic shift from the userâs perspective.
A usage-based pricing model on a raw API (like OpenAIâs) is one thing â we control the inputs, we manage the retries, we optimize for cost, we choose the damn model. If we burn tokens, itâs largely on our prompt engineering or our explicit choice to iterate. But v0 is an API WRAPPER. You control the black box. We have almost ZERO granular control to stop v0 from hemorrhaging our money when your tool fundamentally screws up. Youâve stripped away our agency over the cost and left us holding the bag for your platformâs flaws. This isnât âpay-as-you-goâ; itâs âpay-for-our-problems.â
Stop giving us the runaround with your âweâre listeningâ charade. Stop hiding behind vague statements. Stop treating your developer community â the very people who understand these systems â like they canât see through this.
What we demand is simple, if youâre capable of understanding it:
-
IMMEDIATE REVERSAL OR DRASTIC OVERHAUL: This pricing is untenable. Either revert it or implement changes that restore actual value and predictability for your users. That means significantly lower token costs or much higher credit allocations.
-
FIX THE UNDERLYING PRODUCT: Before you dare charge these premium rates, make v0 reliable. We are not your beta testers, and we refuse to pay for the privilege of debugging your productâs constant failures.
-
RADICAL TRANSPARENCY: Open the books. Show us the real costs and the real usage metrics. Treat us like partners, not piggy banks.
-
ACCOUNTABILITY: Who signed off on this? What was the rationale? Admit the mistake and commit to a better path forward, co-designed with your community.
This isnât just about losing subscribers anymore. This is about Vercelâs reputation. This is about whether developers can ever trust you again with critical parts of their workflow and budget. You are actively destroying the goodwill you once had.
The choice is yours, Vercel. Continue down this path of contempt and watch v0 die a slow, agonizing death as users flee to saner, fairer alternatives. Or, for once, actually listen, show some humility, and fix the colossal mess youâve created.
Weâre not holding our breath, but we are watching.
1 Like
And hereâs the truly tragic part, Vercel:
We â and thousands like us who are flooding your forums and canceling subscriptions â loved v0. We saw its revolutionary potential. We wanted to build with it, evangelize it, and see it succeed beyond measure. Our current fury isnât born from indifference; itâs born from the deep disappointment of watching a product we genuinely valued, a product that could have been incredible, being driven into the ground by decisions that feel completely disconnected from the users who were its biggest champions.
We want to continue to use and support v0. But you are making that impossible. You are taking that desire and actively crushing it with these policies. Thatâs why this stings so much, and thatâs why the backlash is so severe. Weâre not just losing a tool; weâre losing what felt like a partner in creation, and itâs being ripped away by what appears to be sheer corporate short-sightedness.
1 Like
My last opinion before I hit te road.
I was very unhappy having wasted credits on an AI trying to solve an issue but creating errors from errors trying to fix errors (basically half of my credits).
I do not know why the change in pricing was done, thereâs not much transparency but reading a couple of posts to get perspective, I think itâs safe to say the previous pricing system was a bargain, something no other platform offered the same way V0 did, additionally I also think itâs way overdue that V0 trained its own model to make it more affordable/accessible like the competitors.
I believe the change couldâve been done much better, at least with documentation for better workflows to assist the noob vibe coders who doesnt have much experience vibe coding âefficientlyâ or/and a $10 trial (once off) for all users to see how it works/feels. Instead users got impacted badly by it with no compensation or acknowledgment making it clear that the developers of V0/Vercel do not care as much about their users as they should.
I was a strong V0 vocal supporter, but how this all played out is not something I would like to be part of or have any relation with.
You have a great product, but not this great. Subscribing to the new pricing model was the worst subscription I ever made in my life with the impact it had on me (half of my credits gone on the model not doing what it should and creating more errors).
Farewell.
Unfortunately, AI cannot give very good feedback and do good work right away. When developing something, we need to chat with AI a lot. I think you should have used this step in a scenario where AI has improved significantly and doesnât make mistakes after 2 or 3 years. Also, switching to this new model without any prior announcement gave Vercel a negative score in my eyes.
this credit system is too wasteful in my opinion. in just 2 days I have already spent 15 usd from my teamâs monthly credit
return to the old system, donât use the credit system
So long v0, I just cancelled my plan. Despite implementing enhanced prompts, the outputs remain plagued by defects, spending valuable credits to resolve errors introduced by the agent itself is untenable. Please improve the modelâs stability and reliability, and I will gladly reassess its use. In the meantime, I will continue working with Replit.
1 Like
Hi team,
Iâve been using V0 extensively and have really enjoyed the tool up until now. However, the recent change to a token-based usage model has significantly impacted the way I (and many others, I believe) use the platform.
The new limits are far too restrictive, especially for those of us who rely on V0 for frequent prototyping, iteration, and design exploration. What used to be a fluid and empowering experience has now become frustrating and expensive. The current system discourages creativity and experimentation â which are core to why we used V0 in the first place.
I understand the need for a sustainable business model, but this shift has made V0 practically unviable for many users, especially freelancers, indie developers, and small teams. The pricing doesnât match the value anymore under these new constraints.
Please consider revisiting this model or at least providing more generous tiers or options. Many of us would be willing to pay for fair usage â but the current structure feels like a steep downgrade from what we had before.
Thanks for listening.
6 Likes
Hi, everyone!
First off, thank you all for the thorough feedback. Rest assured, weâve passed every single one to the v0 team.
Our inference costs are based on input and output tokens. Trying to normalize to a single âtokenâ or âmessageâ shared across input and output is very difficult based on the shape of our usage. To get around that, our competitors are just jacking up their pricing to .25c+ per message regardless of the request and response size (as a comparison, the median message on v0 today cost $.08 â more than 3x less). Those inflated per-message prices seem unfair to us.
We decided the most transparent, future-proof, reliable solution is to take inspiration from how frontier model labs charge for on-demand inference⌠with a credit pool and incremental burndown based on consumption. Thatâs what weâve done here.
We will introduce new models with different prices in the coming weeks, including the ability for you to easily switch between cheaper and more expensive options. Our new pricing allows us to charge for what you use independent of which model you use â and to support more use cases, like the v0 API we released yesterday.
Let me know if you have any more questions or comments 
This isnât about pricing models. Itâs about killing the productâs usability.
Thanks for the response, but none of this addresses the real problem.
The issue isnât whether itâs based on tokens, messages, or fairy dust. The issue is that v0 now costs more, delivers less, and penalizes users for the platformâs own mistakes.
Youâre charging users credits every time your own system fails, and âFix itâ burns more tokens for a broken output that wasnât the userâs fault in the first place. Thatâs not transparent â itâs exploitative.
Comparing your $.08 median cost to inflated $.25+ competitors means nothing if your system requires 3x more retries, fixes, and prompts to get the same result. What matters is not how much a âmessageâ costs â itâs how many we need to get something usable. And right now, itâs a lot.
Also, the 1M token price is ridiculously high, especially for something that breaks so often. Youâve made iteration â the very core of building with AI â a luxury. Youâre punishing the most active and valuable users of your platform with a pricing structure that feels more like a punishment than a service.
Calling this âfuture-proofâ is marketing spin. Right now, it just feels like a cash grab.
Please stop pretending this is a step forward. Itâs not. Itâs a degradation of what made v0 useful in the first place: speed, experimentation, and low-friction iteration.
Weâre not just giving feedback â weâre warning you. This is the kind of shift that drives loyal users away.
Raise our voice!
#SaveV0
6 Likes
SAVE v0
1 Like
Subject: Urgent & Comprehensive Feedback: The v0 Pricing Catastrophe â A Betrayal of Users & A Plea for Sanity (and Honesty)
To the Vercel Leadership, v0 Product Team, and Whom It May Concern,
This message consolidates the overwhelming, deeply negative sentiment expressed by myself and countless other users across your community forums regarding the recent, disastrous changes to v0 pricing. Your current responses, including the latest from Pauline P. Narvas, are not only inadequate but demonstrate a profound disconnect from the reality your users are facing and a worrying lack of accountability from Vercelâs leadership.
Let us be unequivocally, painfully clear, stripping away any corporate euphemisms:
1. The âImproved Pricingâ Narrative is Deceptive and Insulting:
You market this as an âimprovement.â For whom? Certainly not for your users, who are experiencing what amounts to a 10x, 50x, or even 100x effective price hike. Credits are vanishing in hours, not for productive work, but for battling v0âs own errors and inefficiencies. Calling this an âimprovementâ is a deliberate misrepresentation that has shattered user trust. The only entity this âimprovesâ things for appears to be Vercelâs bottom line, at the direct, painful expense of its customers.
2. Comparing v0 (The Application) to Raw API Endpoints is Fundamentally Flawed and Disingenuous:
Paulineâs reiteration of Jared Palmerâs X/Twitter talking point about inference costs and competitor API pricing is a red herring, and frankly, insulting to a developer community that understands these distinctions.
- With a raw API, WE control the inputs, the model selection, the retry logic, and the error handling. We bear the cost of OUR decisions.
- With v0 (the application/wrapper), YOUR tool makes those calls. When YOUR tool gets stuck in a loop, generates buggy code, hallucinates entire files, or requires numerous attempts to correct its own mistakes, WE are forced to pay for YOUR productâs failures and inefficiencies. We have ZERO granular control to stop v0 from burning our money when it malfunctions.
This isnât âpay-as-you-goâ for a service; itâs âpay-for-Vercelâs-bugs-and-inefficiencies.â
3. Your âMedian Costâ Statistic is Meaningless and Misleading:
The claim that the âmedian message on v0 today cost $.08â deliberately obscures the brutal reality of the cost distribution.
- It ignores the countless instances where single interactions cost $0.60, $1.00, or more, often for erroneous output.
- It fails to account for the multiple (expensive) attempts needed to get one piece of usable code due to v0âs unreliability. The effective cost per successful outcome is astronomically higher.
- It doesnât differentiate between a token spent on a useful generation and a token wasted on v0 producing garbage. We are paying for both equally.
4. The Competitor Argument is Weak and Selectively Applied:
You vaguely reference âcompetitors jacking up their pricing to .25c+.â
- Which competitors, specifically? And how does v0âs true effective cost per successful outcome (factoring in errors and retries) compare?
- Users are actively citing alternatives like Cursor and Windsurf who have found more user-friendly models that donât penalize users so harshly for AI errors. Why is Vercel ignoring these examples and pretending its model is somehow fairer?
5. The Lack of Leadership Engagement is Appalling:
Where is the actual v0 product leadership? Where is Jared Palmer, the creator of v0 and the executive presumably driving this strategy? His reported activity on X/Twitter, amplifying curated âpositive feedbackâ while your official forums are a dumpster fire of legitimate user outrage, is a profoundly disrespectful approach. It signals an unwillingness to face the real, unfiltered consequences of these decisions.
6. This Model Gatekeeps v0 for the Wealthy and Kills Broader Adoption:
This new pricing structure, coupled with v0âs current reliability issues, ensures that only users and companies with significant cash to burn can afford to use v0 for any serious, iterative development. It prices out students, hobbyists, indie developers, and small teams.
7. The Core, Unanswered Question: Why Are We Paying For Your Productâs Failures? And Can You Even Afford to Do It Differently?
This is the crux of the entire issue. No amount of justification about âinference costsâ absolves Vercel of the responsibility for how its product (v0) consumes those tokens, especially when it does so inefficiently, erroneously, or uncontrollably, at the userâs direct and substantial expense. If Vercel cannot afford to operate v0 under a model that doesnât penalize users for its own productâs flaws, then just be honest with us. Tell us the economics are unsustainable for you under a fair-use paradigm. Perhaps then, if developing v0 responsibly is too much of a financial burden for Vercel, you should seriously consider open-sourcing the v0 application. Let the community that clearly loves the idea of v0 contribute to its development and find sustainable ways to run it, rather than Vercel slowly killing it with a predatory pricing model.
What We, Your (Formerly) Loyal User Base, Demand:
-
IMMEDIATE ACTION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
-
Pause this disastrous rollout or implement an immediate, massive increase in credit allocations/reduction in token costs to restore previous value.
-
Issue a sincere, unequivocal apology from leadership (@jared included) acknowledging the misstep, the validity of user outrage, and the damage done to user trust.
-
-
RADICAL TRANSPARENCY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL REALITY):
- Release actual, unvarnished data: average token consumption, v0 error rates, true cost distributions. And be honest: could you afford the old model, or is this new model a necessity for survival?
-
PRODUCT RELIABILITY AS PRIORITY #1:
- Aggressively fix v0âs core reliability. We refuse to continue paying premium rates to beta-test an unstable product.
-
A FAIR AND SUSTAINABLE PRICING MODEL, CO-DESIGNED WITH THE COMMUNITY:
-
This must include mechanisms where users are NOT charged (or are minimally charged) for tokens consumed due to clear v0 errors, loops, or demonstrably unusable output.
-
Explore predictable flat-rate tiers or models that offer genuine value and accessibility.
-
-
ACCOUNTABILITY AND DIRECT ENGAGEMENT:
- The v0 product team and Vercel leadership must engage directly, consistently, and honestly with this community.
We loved v0. Our current anger stems from the profound disappointment of watching a great idea be catastrophically mishandled. We want to support a product that respects its users.
You keep asking for feedback, yet the torrent of it seems to be ignored. What will it take for Vercel to genuinely listen, take responsibility, and make the drastic changes necessary to salvage v0 and its relationship with its community? Or, if you canât, to have the integrity to admit it and explore alternatives like open-sourcing?
The current path leads to a mass exodus and a permanently tarnished reputation. Choose wisely.
Sincerely,
A Deeply Disappointed (but still hoping for a drastic course correction or an honest alternative) User.
2 Likes
With all due respect, this is greed⌠that $20 goes for 2 messages that the same v0 generates is degenerate, increase the price or whatever but donât put that disgusting token system, it is an outrage and costs too much, at this point it is cheaper to hire someone who knows how to program.
v0 has many errors, âcontinue generatingâ, âstoppedâ, âfix the errorâ and it is understandable and that almost does not bother me but it happens very often, with the message system it did not bother much because you could handle it but now you have to be with a magnifying glass to know how much you are going to spend fixing that error, besides that each action costs money
1 Like
Your new pricing model has left me feeling extremely frustrated.
Iâve been a paid customer of Vercel for over a year now. It worked well, and I started working on several projects, paying every month because I received all the support I needed. However, just a few days ago, you changed the pricing model, and itâs truly detrimental.
We had been using prompt-based charges, which was a great option. We planned our daily prompt usage and worked on medium to large projects using Vercel v0. But unfortunately, the token has already been exhausted, just for resolving errors generated by v0 itself. The credits were depleted in less than five days, and I have 25 days left.
Now, I canât work on my project anymore. If $20 was exhausted in just five days, I canât imagine how much more Iâll have to pay to continue working on Vercel. Itâs essentially âextortion.â
So, what do I do? Iâve switched to Windsurf and will continue working on my project that you canât stop me from. But what happens after this? I donât want to work on my project on Vercel anymore because itâs impossible. Once I download the project locally and resume working with Windsurf, and maybe after 25 days when I get my credits back in v0, maybe I want to resume working on Vercel. But that wonât happen or it is âimpossibleâ because you donât provide a way to upload large projects in the chat.
This means that Iâll never be able resume or complete the 25 days worth of work on Vercel. Everyone will eventually leave because thereâs no way to continue working on Vercel after they download and start working locally. Maybe a few people will keep paying whatever you charge them and I would like to say all the best!
2 Likes
0.4 1 request, with that cant make more of the 10% of the old system, abusers!
And the best part? I had to pay for its own mistakes!
I was charged $0.40 just to edit, and then $0.47 more to fix an error the AI itself caused.
Thatâs nearly a dollar just to clean up after a broken generation I didnât ask for.
How is this fair?
3 Likes
I appreciate you sharing the rationale behind the new pricing structure, but frankly, these explanations sidestep the real issue: the modelâs instability. Charging us less per token doesnât matter if half our credits are wasted fighting bugs and erratic behavior. Token accounting is a back-end concern; reliability is a front-end requirement.
We didnât sign up to normalize abstract âtoken consumptionâ â we signed up for a tool we can trust to perform consistently. Comparing yourselves to competitors who charge $0.25 per message misses the point: itâs not about being the cheapest, itâs about delivering a dependable, high-quality service. Right now, every bug bites into our engineering time and undermines confidence in your platform.
We need concrete accountability:
- A clear stability roadmap â What specific improvements and timelines can we expect to see in the next 30, 60, and 90 days?
- Measurable reliability targets â What uptime/SLA guarantees and error-rate thresholds will you commit to?
- Proactive quality metrics â How will you track and publish ongoing performance (e.g., bug counts, mean time to resolution)?
Please shift the conversation from token economics to engineering excellence. Fix the root cause so we arenât constantly firefighting. I look forward to seeing a detailed plan for making v0 as stable as it is affordable.
2 Likes
Iâm finding it increasingly difficult to work within the Vercel ecosystem and its pricing structure. You once had a reliable system that attracted designersâsustainable and accessible. Now it feels like the balance is completely gone.
Youâre selling a product that can make mistakes. If AI fails to deliver what the user requests, a fair model would offer a refund. No truly reasonable pricing system could survive otherwise.
Iâm done engaging with the Vercel ecosystem.
3 Likes
Good job on losing over 80% of your customer base, deleting Discord aswell?
trust , gone, platform usabilityâŚgone
well done Vercel, you done killed it.
3 Likes
Cancelling my plan due to this change. While I understand from a business perspective, You effectively made the pro plan worthless. You used to easily be able to get unlimited use out of the pro plan, now it lasts less than a week / few days if weâre being generous. Overpriced due to the reliability of the AI itself
3 Likes
Having been working on a site for months Iâm very disappointed with the new billing. I am very happy to pay my a monthly subscription to gain access to a tool which enables me to create products. With these changes, my monthly subscription has given me 2 days worth of changes out of 30. My majority of work has been insisting V0 fixes issue it creates by overwriting files when changing them or iterating to identify a solution to an issue which v0 hugely overcomplicates, to eventually find a solution roll back and then implement. Thatâs pretty much all Iâve done and Iâve used up my $20 for a month. What is the value in paying for a subscription. You have to think about how you want to enable your user base to work with your system because this is completely non viable to sit within my AI tech stake. As a solo business owner, the initial packages of most products give me what I need to start to use a product in anger and scale, the $20 plan gives me 2/30 days of work. I will need to find an alternative if this doesnât change. Very disappointed Iâve loved working with this tool.
5 Likes