[Feature Request] Keep Claude Fable 5 included in the Max plan after July 7 (not usage-credits-only)

Totally agree

agreed

agreed this is not a good look

Agreed. I have turned off the renewal of my Max plan. I cannot justify $200/month without Fable included. There are too many other competitive options at that price point.

I would definitely support this. User experience and long-term trust from user community can be vital for business success. Market share is also vital in keeping the wheel running faster than competitors. But I suppose you guys might already think about this and agree on it. You just wanted the process to be much more fun ;-p

As a Max subscriber I build real work around the model that ships as my default, and moving Fable 5 to usage-credits-only after July 7 pulls that out from under paying subscribers with no committed return date. I understand the capacity constraint, but "as soon as capacity allows" isn't something I can plan around. Please prioritise restoring Fable 5 to standard Max inclusion, and in the meantime give subscribers a concrete timeline or interim allowance rather than an open-ended metered-only period.

+1. The main reason to pay for a top tier plan is getting the most capable model as a daily driver. Moving Fable 5 to usage-credits-only means the top subscription no longer includes the top model.

I get that capacity is the real constraint, and I appreciate the stated commitment to restore Fable 5 to subscriptions once capacity allows. Two asks: prioritize that restoration, and in the meantime offer a capped inclusion (say 20 to 25% of weekly limits, credits as overflow) instead of nothing. A published timeline or set of criteria would also help, since “when capacity allows” is open-ended. Thanks for considering.

Adding my profile to this thread because I'm the customer this decision is aimed at, and I want the data point on record.

I'm a Max subscriber who runs near my weekly limits most weeks. Separately, I spend roughly $20/day in API usage on Haiku and Sonnet running production automation across four businesses I operate. I am not a casual user and I am not price-insensitive. I pay Anthropic several hundred dollars a month, every month, by choice.

Here's my experience of the last month as a paying customer:

1. Fable 5 launched June 9, included in my plan through June 22. I built real workflows around it during that window because that's what the launch invited me to do.
2. The export suspension erased most of that window. Not Anthropic's fault, but the promised access never materialized.
3. It returned July 1 with a 50% usage cap and a 6-day deadline, extended to July 12 only after this thread blew up.
4. From July 13, the top-tier model is excluded from the top-tier plan, billed instead at $10/$50 per Mtok, double Opus, with no published conversion between plan usage and credit dollars. I cannot model my own spend from anything Anthropic has published.

The capability difference between Fable and Opus is not marginal for my work. Fable's intent inference and long-horizon reasoning save me real development time in ways Opus does not replicate. I've used both extensively. Telling heavy users "Opus is fine" is not responsive to why we bought Max in the first place: predictable access to the most capable model.

I understand the unit economics. Flat-rate plans can't subsidize unbounded frontier usage. But the sequence here, launch it bundled, let workflows form, then meter it with days of notice and vague timelines, is a trust problem independent of the economics. "When capacity allows" with no criteria and no date is not a commitment, it's a deferral.

What would keep my money here:

• A capped Fable inclusion in Max (the current 50% model, or even 20-25%), with credits as overflow. Cap it however you need to. Just make some amount of it part of what Max buys.
• Or a published timeline and criteria for the restoration promised in the launch announcement.
• Or a subscriber credit rate below full API pricing, acknowledging we already pay for access.

Absent one of those, the math changes. A competitor now bundles its frontier model into a $20 plan. I have reasons I'd prefer not to use them, but preference has a price, and this decision is testing it. I'd rather stay. Give me a reason that isn't "trust us."

Your point about “credits on top of the subscription” being an effective price increase is important—the sticker price alone no longer describes the deal, especially when predictable access is the reason to stay on Max.
I operate PricingTrace, an independent source-linked pricing and subscription-terms tracker. Claude already has a page here: https://pricingtrace.com/tools/claude
It won't change Anthropic's product decision, but the page preserves the current baseline and lets you create a free alert for meaningful pricing, usage-limit, or terms changes. Disclosure: this is my own project, and the alert is free during validation.