Tell HN: OpenAI brings back 5 hour limit for plus and business standard users

In case you're wondering why the limits behave so very different from last week. Also: this makes limit resets kind woth significantly less.

75 points | by spwa4 1 hour ago

17 comments

  • redox99 1 minute ago
    5h limits are awful. It means it is literally unable to complete a large task.

    A better approach if they want to balance the load is having higher usage or lower usage consumption at different times of day.

  • nullbio 1 minute ago
    I think it's reasonable for the Plus plans to have this. If you're doing any serious work you should be on the Pro plan. If you're a casual user, 5 hours is more than plenty.
  • paxys 32 minutes ago
    People should realize by now that they aren't giving out thousands of dollars worth of compute in a $20 subscription out of the goodness of their hearts. The base level plans aren't meant for any kind of serious work beyond the equivalent of Google searches. At best treat it like a trial.
    • solenoid0937 22 minutes ago
      I hope everyone recognized the cheap tokens as a transparent ploy to gain more users before jacking up prices. This was obvious from day one.
      • fny 14 minutes ago
        I hope everyone recognizes they aim to make you dependent on their intelligence rather than your own.
        • zulux 0 minutes ago
          There's an escape valve: I've had Claude stand-up AI-enabled features in my app, so we're much less dependent on Claude itself. The app uses cheap API calls to check code quality and run other "lessons learned" sweeps. Some of these become regular code in the end as well.
        • catchnear4321 10 minutes ago
          I reject your intelligence and substitute my own?
      • flir 13 minutes ago
        Or more efficient models/faster hardware close the gap between here and profitability.

        I wouldn't be surprised if every $10 you add to the subscription cost halves your audience.

      • password54321 19 minutes ago
        It is really about data. The endgame is not hoping devs give them money.
      • geraldwhen 16 minutes ago
        They won’t be able to. Open models exist and run on a Mac you can buy now or in October.
        • howdareme9 7 minutes ago
          please point me to an open model, that matches astra even on low reasoning, and runs on a mac
        • apparent 11 minutes ago
          The audience for this sort of thing is currently quite limited. It may grow more in the future, especially if prices get out of control, but for now, it's a relatively small subset of people.
        • esskay 3 minutes ago
          Sorry but this is a pretty delusional take. No, you cant run the same level or even close to that level of model on a mac, not even on a 512gb studio. You can run good models sure, but not models anywhere close to the capabilities of these ones yet, despite what idiots on Twitter keep spouting.
      • brazukadev 19 minutes ago
        As long as there is no path to profitability going from subsidized to fully paid tokens we are making them lose money.
    • worldsavior 4 minutes ago
      I thought it was always about us being the RL. We pay less because they use our usage to train their models.
    • kraftman 14 minutes ago
      Is it not due to the all the user data they are gathering?
  • CSMastermind 22 minutes ago
    Once they capature enough marketshare prices and restrictions are both going to skyrocket. The difference between the subscription usage and API pricing are stark.
    • jamesriso 15 minutes ago
      This is interesting to think about. There's so much competition among the frontier labs and from outside via open source it just doesn't seem obvious to me they could maintain elevated prices
      • drob518 7 minutes ago
        You’re going to get multiple tiers (as we already are). You’re always going to pay top dollar for frontier models, but you’re going to find things highly discounted if you’re willing to move off the frontier. See GLM 5.3 Flash, for instance.
      • pinkmuffinere 7 minutes ago
        Ya, setting aside any judgement about what's "right", this strategy doesn't seem profitable. There's no real moat between one model/provider to another, switching is relatively easy. I don't understand how this is supposed to work for them.

        It strikes me as similar to UPS / USPS / Fedex -- everyone uses the mail, and they mostly use whichever is cheapest for their requirements. I don't think there's much loyalty to specific services, and people are happy to switch between the options

        • sidrag22 1 minute ago
          just dont fall in love with goofy memory style features and its likely gonna be fairly easy to just plug and play whatever model for a ton of use cases.

          I dont see a lot of love for weird memory like features on HN, but on provider subreddits its constantly talked about.

      • Den_VR 2 minutes ago
        It should seem obvious they are seeking governmental intervention to limit “unaligned, or unsafe” alternatives.
    • KronisLV 16 minutes ago
      This would need to be a collusion across most of the providers (which I think is likely to happen) otherwise OpenAI would get ditched for Anthropic or vice versa, depending on who raises the prices more. If it happens across the board then enterprises that can use Chinese models won’t have that many options but to pay up.
    • johnnyApplePRNG 15 minutes ago
      That's the fever-dream that OpenAI et al is fraudulently marketing to their investors I suspect, yes.
  • jonpurdy 11 minutes ago
    Controversial take but this works better for me than just the weekly limit. I have about 1-2 hours of sustained focus per 5 hour period so if I run out of tokens then I can take a break and start again in a few hours. Or just use the top ups that I’ve paid for in case I want to push through.

    Having just the weekly limit meant I could blow through too much within the first couple of days. Fortunately, resets were raining down during that time.

    (I know I could just vibe code a tracker that splits up my usage into arbitrary periods and lets me know when to take a break. Maybe if they remove the 5-hour limit again.)

  • watty 53 minutes ago
    Session limits are obnoxious and make Codex much less useful for me. I tend to code in spurts when I find some time and the $20 weekly limit was reasonable for my side projects.

    I'm now hitting the session limits which means I can either purchase another plan, upgrade, or move off of Codex.

    • jstummbillig 39 minutes ago
      The equivalent alternative is not "no hourly limits", it's simply less overall weekly allowance for Plus users, or higher prices overall. It's a way to balance a scarce resource, and maybe the least frustrating one?

      People have a fair chance to learn resource management in 5 hour chunks, while not being limited to silly models, and burning through all tokens in the first hour of the week. Seems mostly good.

      • ignoramous 31 minutes ago
        > Seems mostly good

        What's not good for the customer is the constant change of rules. It is bait & switch.

  • minimaxir 1 hour ago
    In hindsight, this makes more sense with the release of Astra. The $100/mo is now a more compelling upsell.
    • programmarchy 1 hour ago
      Yep, worked on me...
    • msh 41 minutes ago
      I went another way and signed up for a opencode go subscription on the side.
      • ronsor 34 minutes ago
        Opencode Go's value is pretty poor these days. It was better a month or two ago.
        • quietsegfault 30 minutes ago
          Can you talk more about what changed in the last two months? I use open router for when I run out of limits, and I’ve done better than buying an additional sub for my uses. I thought about looking at a more niche player, but it’s not a priority for me yet.
          • ronsor 23 minutes ago
            First of all, it still has the 5 hour limits, which is what this thread is about and what I think what most in this thread want to avoid.

            Second, the offerings are subject to change at random. They advertised $60 of usage for $10/month (knowing most users wouldn't reach that). This was consistently the case up until early August, when the per-model "usage multipliers" started taking over. Some models give $15 of usage per month, others $30, still others remain at $60, and apparently one at $100 now?[0] Either way, I don't want to expend the mental effort to track which model is the best deal for capability and usage.

            Right now I use Hyper[1] for $20/month and give $100/month to OpenAI. Not OpenAI's biggest fan, but the value is good right now, and that's what matters.

            [0] https://opencode.ai/docs/go/

            [1] https://hyper.charm.land

        • esafak 31 minutes ago
          What changed, increased quantization and reduced context windows?
  • robotswantdata 44 minutes ago
    This is very fair. Compared to Claude the Codex limits are much better and smarter model.
  • indigodaddy 10 minutes ago
    What also sucks is your weekly reset does not also reset your 5 hourly. A bit like a slap in the face..
  • reenorap 28 minutes ago
    How is 5 hrs being measured and over what time period?
    • gowthamgts12 24 minutes ago
      when you send your first message, the timer will start.
    • colechristensen 24 minutes ago
      In all of them I've seen it's a window that starts when you haven't been using it in a while and begin work OR when your previous window expired. The window starts with a set number of tokens and cuts you off when they're used, it is fully reset at the end of the window (it's not a sliding window).

      When you haven't used any tokens for an extended amount of time it reverts to the point where whenever you send your first token is when the window begins.

  • Gurio 35 minutes ago
    This is one of the reasons I’ve built a resident daemon on top a local CC/codex. 5h sessions is a [lazy] way to shift the scaling responsibility onto a user, so they are staying with us for a while
  • estebarb 37 minutes ago
    I dislike this approach. In my opinion it is much useful a 1x/2x billing based on hour like Deepseek does. Being unable to use it at the hours I need it makes me want to remove the service, not upgrading it.
  • almog 40 minutes ago
    Previous discussion (from 13 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432879
  • jeanmichelselli 41 minutes ago
    Clearly, the prices and limitations will increase with time if they don't find an efficient way to perform training and inference of LLMs. It would be great to see those issues being seriously addressed and, eventually, being fixed for good. THAT would definitely make an important and practical difference. Not only economically but also scientifically.
    • parineum 31 minutes ago
      I always wonder where the people are who continually claim that this whole thing is already profitable are when prices are increased or services cut.
  • browningstreet 38 minutes ago
    Codex pharming on X should take a dip…
  • installiskeycon 1 hour ago
    KARIBIK
  • PaywallBuster 53 minutes ago
    This allows users to pace their subscription usage to last the whole week.

    I've had few weekends where I spend the full week credits over night then have nothing to do for a week

    • recursive 15 minutes ago
      It might be good to have at least two hobbies.
    • wrkronmiller 49 minutes ago
      They could make this opt-in or opt-out