Adobe, Firefly Video, disappointment

I thought this Generative Video Beta was free to try out, but it appears it uses your credits. Why should we pay even more than we already do, just to test out this new tech? I call BS!

It would also be nice to get a notice before hitting generate as to how many credits things will cost. I was hoping Adobe would be easier/better in this space than others, but maybe not. Sigh.

Also, every time I post somethng, it errors and says I am using invalid HTML code. I don't even write code at all. I have to paste the text and strip it down to plain text and paste back. Super efficient.

I was really looking forward to use the much anticipated video generation feature for firefly, I waited for it to come out instead of going for other well known sites since I have an adobe CC subscription and use firefly image generation in my workflow instead of going to other sites, I was expecting that video generation would be included with our adobe CC subscription but evidently it's not-- we're expected to pay an additional fee. I only got one single generation and it wasn't even a good one.

What's the point of me paying a CC subscription if I have to get additional ones, it's absurd. At least include a 720p generations for Adobe CC subscriptors, very frustrated with this move.

The fact you want CC subscribers to pay for the AI service is outrageous. I will find other cheaper sources to use. You gave me only two edits before getting hit with a paywall for the program as a current subscriber is F***ing STUPID! 😂

I’ve been paying $90 CAD a month for Adobe Creative Cloud for over 7 years now—do the math, that’s well over $7,500—and now Adobe wants even more money to generate AI video with Firefly? Seriously? This feels like a real slap in the face to loyal subscribers who have supported Adobe through thick and thin.

I’m not alone in feeling this way. I’ve seen tons of other people online frustrated with Adobe for this exact reason. We’ve been paying thousands over the years, thinking we’re investing in a platform that values its users. But now, after all that time and money, Adobe’s asking us to dig even deeper into our pockets for features that should absolutely be included in the subscription we’re already locked into. It’s not like Creative Cloud is cheap to begin with.

It’s especially frustrating for content creators and artists who are already struggling financially. A lot of us are independent creators trying to make a living, and every dollar counts. Adding another fee for AI tools like Firefly just puts those features out of reach for so many people. It’s basically saying, “If you can’t afford to pay more, you don’t get access.” That’s not exactly fostering creativity or supporting the artistic community—it’s creating a divide where only those with extra cash can take advantage of the latest tools.

What’s even worse is that it feels like Adobe is taking advantage of the fact that a lot of us feel stuck. After using their software for so long, we’ve built our entire workflows around it. Switching to something else isn’t easy, and Adobe knows it. But moves like this make it tempting to start looking at alternatives. Other platforms are catching up, and they’re offering more affordable options without constantly nickel-and-diming their users.

I get that companies need to make money, but there’s a difference between fair pricing and squeezing every last cent out of your most loyal customers. Adobe, this isn’t the way to do business. We’ve supported you for years, and this is how you thank us? It’s disappointing, and frankly, it’s pushing people away. If you keep heading down this road, don’t be surprised when more and more creators start jumping ship.

A fair pricing model for Adobe Firefly could be offering users 5 free generations per day to allow casual creators to experiment without added costs, while providing affordable monthly plans for those who need more. For example, a $40/month plan for unlimited Firefly video generations would be a much better deal than what other apps like NIM, KREA, or LEONARDO offer. This would strike a balance between accessibility for artists on a budget and generating revenue from power users, without alienating loyal subscribers who have already invested heavily in the Adobe ecosystem.

WIthout a clear communication the introduction of credits has begun.
However the product of video generation is still very faulty and probelmatic.
Strange blinking, weird hands, morphing etc the list goes on.
Even if AI generation is amazing, it still results in spending money on a service that gives unusable results.
We were hardly informed when the credits started ( read unnesescary loss of credits ) and a lot of generations are faulty ( loss of credits ) I wonder how adobe can justify their credit implementation at this point in time?

I agree as well.
It seems I have 1000 'AI' credits per month with my account BUT these cannot be used to generate videos...
So there are two types of Generative monthly credits?

Bonjour, je tente d'utiliser Firefly vidéo mais l'outil m'indique que je n'ai plus de crédit alors que je dispose de plus de 900 crédits. C'est très frustrant.

je découvre avec amertume cette logique de crédits et je suis très déçu de voir de nouvelles limitations à notre abonnement. Je suis chef d'entreprise et nous dépensons plus de 200€ par mois pour dotter nos employés de la suite Adobe et je commence à considérer passer à des alternatives lorsque je vois ce genre de limitations arriver.

It's truly disappointing that after years of being a loyal subscriber and dedicated customer, I'm only given a mere 5-second trial video. I honestly expected better and feel let down—it comes across as stingy and exploitative, especially considering that this isn’t even the best AI system available. I was eagerly looking forward to this, but I’m left feeling deeply disappointed.

I concur. This is not a beta version and should not have been advertised as such. I think what is particularly egregious is the target audience – namely, those who are already paying for services.

No differentiation was made between ‘Enterprise’ plans, and so incorrect information was given (prior to 13/02/25) to those accessing via educational institutions.

I was excited about getting to try video generation – I work as part of a research group conducting independent clinical trials (funded by charities or governmental bodies) and our resources are severely limited for marketing. The use of firefly for image generation has been incredibly useful – and being able to generate videos would have likely been game changing. I now have to inform my colleagues that this is not something we’re able to access (and that we should have been exploring alternatives sooner).

Adobe should have been clear what they were offering. I understand the need to generate more revenue, but this rollout seems to have been badly planned as (i) people’s expectations weren’t managed correctly (should have been warned this was not part of subscriptions/not beta testing) (ii) offering, at most, two generations for something that usually needs several levels of refinement (it’s going to leave people with the impression that it isn’t worth paying for).  

The only way I could see this approach having any success was if no other AI video generators were available – but there are many (many) other competitors out there.

I totally agree. Adobe is being greedy. Firefly should be included in my $60 monthly subscription. The current model allows almost zero opportunity for customers to get any feel for how it works. I did not get good results from the couple of attempts I had to generate a measly 5-second video. There is no way I will pay for Firefly. The Marketing Department needs to seriously rethink their approach.