exactly, I’ve been using cursor since literally day one, hell, Michael emailed me a few times for suggestions and such because I’m a 1% top cursor user, forcing max mode is pointless, the out come is no different then non max mode, it’s just a massive token suck, I already pay for out of plan usage anyways, why would I pay 50x more when I can just go pay $200 a month for claude code
Spot on. Restricting access and changing terms mid-cycle without a single heads-up isn’t just a breach of trust—it’s borderline deceptive business practice.
But we need to ask ourselves a deeper question: Why does Cursor feel so comfortable disrespecting us over and over again?
The answer is simple: they look at the data, see that legacy users are now a minority, and decide our satisfaction simply doesn’t matter to their bottom line anymore. They calculate that they can quietly squeeze us out or force us to upgrade, betting that we are too few and too scattered to make a meaningful dent in their reputation.
This is exactly why we cannot let this slide. If they realize they can breach the trust of their earliest supporters without any backlash, what’s stopping them from doing it to the next tier of users tomorrow? We might be a minority in their current metrics, but we are the foundation of this community. It’s time to show them that ignoring us will cost them.
If we want anything to change, we all need to e-mail Michael, [email protected] it’s the only way we’ll actually get this resolved.
(post deleted by author)
whats ironic is they don’t require max mode for composer 2.5, which is basically operating at the same level as opus 4.7/4.8 anyways and in practice I’d say resembles fable 5 more then anything because it spins up sub agents like crazy the same way fable 5 does, it seems more like they want people using their model over claude and gpt
Please don’t forget the users who’ve supported Cursor from the start. I’ve been subscribing since the early days, and I don’t think longtime customers should be forced to use Max Mode just to access the latest frontier models. The much higher request cost makes the experience significantly worse. If this doesn’t change, I’ll likely switch to subscribing directly to ChatGPT or Claude instead.
This is a complete betrayal of early users.
This is completely unacceptable and shows a blatant disregard for your early supporters. You cannot just retroactively label a core feature of the Legacy Individual plan a ‘bug’ to force us into a more expensive model. We were explicitly told in previous communications that the Max Mode requirement did not apply to individual plans. To silently roll out this restriction without any prior notice or transparency is unprofessional. We backed Cursor early on, and degrading the 500-request legacy plan like this destroys user trust. Revert this change or at least honor the terms you originally communicated to your individual users.
(post deleted by author)
Behavior like yours is truly infuriating; I am also one of the first paying users from 2023.
In Australia where I am based, the ACCC to taking Amazon to court of a similar instance of Prime Video changing contract terms on their customers mid billing cycle. Google “ACCC sues amazon”.
I will definitely be lodging a complaint with the ACCC over this citing the same reason from the Amazon case; “unfair contract terms that allowed it to unilaterally make negative changes during the contract period”.
cursor die
I have the same problem. One request took 77 attempts, and a few requests cost 500 attempts
I wish you success
I am one of the early users who started using Cursor back in the 0.1.x days. I just feel that if I can’t get immediate access to the most advanced models, a slight delay is acceptable—but being unable to use anything at all is not.
Hope to attract more attention
There’s gotta be a better, more gradual way to do this instead of just pulling the plug on us out of nowhere! That unannounced usage-based switch from before is still fresh in my mind.
I am an early user of Cursor, and I also recommended Cursor to my friends, and I paid early, but today you directly restricted me from using cutting-edge models, which has a significant impact on customers and brand image. I can accept that top models need more usage counts, but I think it’s unacceptable to turn our Pro subscription into completely useless junk all at once.
@Colin You can’t just change my contract terms half way through. There has been zero communication about this. Models should only be restricted when my billing cycle ends so that I can decide whether I continue using your service or not.
I literally just renewed my annual membership on May 20th, and now you’re changing the content of the membership in blatant violation of our agreement. Does your company have any shred of contract spirit left?