Same length, same resolution, 5.7x the price. I can't explain that to a user.
A 30 second 1080p video on Wan 3.0 costs 90 credits. The same 30 seconds at the same resolution on Seedance 2.5 costs 513. Identical output spec, 5.7x the bill.
I can explain that to another builder in one sentence. I can't explain it to someone who just wants a video, because from where they sit they asked for the same thing twice and got two prices.
So you pick a lie. Flatten it and eat the variance, which means image users fund video users. Show the real number and your pricing page looks arbitrary. Or route quietly to the cheap model and ship worse output than they'd have chosen.
We show the real number on the generate button. It's the least bad of the three and it still costs us, because people anchor on the cheapest thing they ever saw and every model above it reads as a price rise.
I haven't seen anyone solve this. Mostly we've each picked which version of unfair we can live with and stopped talking about it.
Replies
Spent whole day tracing pipeline discrepancies because report showed confident metric to users. Turned out nobody measured it. Coding agent just committed realistic placeholder directly to production )
Softorino 💻📲
The button already shows the real number, so the leak isn't disclosure, it's that a price without a reason reads as arbitrary. On the free tool I write copy for, catch searches dropped once we named what happens to the input before any number showed up. I'd put the 5.7x next to what's driving it, render time or model load, so it reads as a receipt, not a rate card.