Too Expensive
Costs too much
Surveillance
The company shares footage with the state. Beware.
AI Slop
Video feed no longer loads
Invite
Invite not working on update.
More features should be implemented
Short version:
I’ve never liked paywalls for features that should be left to the user’s discretion. Either make the product affordable, accessible, and reliable, or charge a premium and provide permanent access to its tools.
It feels like the PlayStation and GTA 6 situation: I’m forced to agree to terms I may not fully understand, only for the rug to be pulled later. I’m not against paying for a product; I’m against paying for something under one set of expectations only to have the terms change after I’ve committed.
—————————————-
Long version for the bois:
I’ve never been a fan of putting features behind paywalls when they should inherently be left to the user’s discretion. The issue isn’t necessarily the price; it’s the principle. In an era where everything is becoming pay-per-view, I find it disgusting that features are being locked behind additional payments. Either make the product affordable and accessible, with a focus on core functionality and reliability, or charge a premium and provide permanent access to the tools people are paying for.
To me, this feels like another PlayStation and GTA 6 situation: I’m supposedly agreeing to terms and conditions that I’ve never meaningfully had the opportunity to read or negotiate. I can’t even proceed without accepting them, yet that acceptance can later be used to justify changes I never anticipated. Eventually, the rug gets pulled, and the product or experience I thought I was paying for is no longer what I agreed to in practice.
My problem isn’t paying for a product; it’s paying for something under one set of expectations, only to have the terms of that relationship change after I’ve committed. When access, ownership, and functionality can be restricted or monetized after the fact, it becomes less about providing value and more about maintaining leverage over the consumer.
I’ve never liked paywalls for features that should be left to the user’s discretion. Either make the product affordable, accessible, and reliable, or charge a premium and provide permanent access to its tools.
It feels like the PlayStation and GTA 6 situation: I’m forced to agree to terms I may not fully understand, only for the rug to be pulled later. I’m not against paying for a product; I’m against paying for something under one set of expectations only to have the terms change after I’ve committed.
—————————————-
Long version for the bois:
I’ve never been a fan of putting features behind paywalls when they should inherently be left to the user’s discretion. The issue isn’t necessarily the price; it’s the principle. In an era where everything is becoming pay-per-view, I find it disgusting that features are being locked behind additional payments. Either make the product affordable and accessible, with a focus on core functionality and reliability, or charge a premium and provide permanent access to the tools people are paying for.
To me, this feels like another PlayStation and GTA 6 situation: I’m supposedly agreeing to terms and conditions that I’ve never meaningfully had the opportunity to read or negotiate. I can’t even proceed without accepting them, yet that acceptance can later be used to justify changes I never anticipated. Eventually, the rug gets pulled, and the product or experience I thought I was paying for is no longer what I agreed to in practice.
My problem isn’t paying for a product; it’s paying for something under one set of expectations, only to have the terms of that relationship change after I’ve committed. When access, ownership, and functionality can be restricted or monetized after the fact, it becomes less about providing value and more about maintaining leverage over the consumer.
Show more
