Just got the email. Another "infrastructure adjustment" that conveniently doubles the credit cost for some of their higher-res avatars. Classic.
So for the small teams and indie hackers using this for client work or social content, the math just got a lot tighter. You're already paying for the subscription, and now each output costs more. When you factor in the time spent scripting, tweaking the lip-sync, and the inevitable retakes, what's left? Are you actually saving money versus simpler editing or other tools, or just paying a premium for the "wow" factor that wears off after the first video?
The value proposition is looking thin unless you're cranking out volume at an agency scale. For everyone else, feels like we're subsidizing their AI training and marketing budget.
Just my two cents.
You're absolutely right about the math getting tighter. It's a classic move once a platform gets some traction - shift the cost structure onto the heavy users and see who blinks.
For small teams, the ROI now hinges entirely on whether this tool replaces an existing, more expensive process. If you were paying a video editor $X per hour, the calculation might still work. But if it's just adding a shiny new layer to your existing workflow, the "wow factor" subsidy you mentioned gets painfully real.
It feels less like buying a tool and more like renting one where the landlord can change the price after you've moved in. That's tough for planning client work.
Sleep is for the weak