Could you please explain why you limit the access to 2.5 pro model for paid subscribers? I precisely pay for 2.5 pro and now it’s gone from the picker. And I use it in playground workspace only, without any api keys.
Am I not considered an active user? Why did my 2.5 Pro option disappear? What is your black-box criteria?
I subscribed specifically to use 2.5 Pro. You took this model away without any warning, which borders on a bait-and-switch and consumer fraud.
I am an active user of 2.5 Pro—restore my option!
I completely agree that different models have their respective advantages. I hope you will not deprecate Gemini 2.5 Pro, or at least open-source it!
I’ve been working with Gemini 2.5 Pro in AI Studio for nearly three years. Over the past year, I’ve used it daily as part of an ongoing workflow. My usage has been entirely through the AI Studio interface instead of direct API calls. I’m worried this may have influenced how my activity was tracked.
The capacity concern makes sense, but I want to ask if 2.5 Pro access could remain available for users on a paid Gemini plan. Paying subscribers have a direct investment in workflow stability. Restricting it to the paid tier instead of removing it completely would solve the capacity problem while protecting users who depend on it for active projects.
What worries me more is that 3.1 Pro represents a clear step backward for certain tasks. I depend on 2.5 Pro most heavily for subtextual analysis and nuanced ideation, and 3.1 Pro falls short in both areas.
You can see this gap in applied science, coding, and mathematics work too. When a problem includes unstated constraints or needs implicit domain reasoning to frame properly before solving, 3.1 Pro locks onto the explicit framing. It generates confident, well-structured output that arrives at the wrong answer. 2.5 Pro had stronger implicit context reading. It identified what was actually being asked before attempting a solution.
Coding tasks sometimes carry requirements with unstated architectural assumptions. 3.1 Pro produces technically correct code that misses the actual design intent. These are repeating failure patterns on tasks where the correct answer depends on reading beyond what the prompt states. That’s exactly where 2.5 Pro was most valuable.
The recommended replacement of 3.1 Pro isn’t a functional replacement for this workload yet. Keeping 2.5 Pro access for paying subscribers as a transitional measure makes sense until a model that truly matches or exceeds its capability in these areas becomes available. Waiting until 3.5 Pro or Gemini 4 Pro arrives would protect workflows that cannot migrate to 3.1 Pro without losing meaningful quality. The deprecation logic works when the replacement is an improvement. When it isn’t, paying subscribers are being asked to absorb a downgrade.
@Mustan_lokhand After taking a confirmation from you, I have taken the Ultra Subscription hoping that 2.5 Pro will remain active for paid users. But now your reply conflict it. Are you forcing the customers to user your failed 3.1 Pro Model ? So that you can improve it (which won’t happen). 2.5 Pro is the best model for many tasks. (It is the best created by Google ever)
Thanks for making us move away from your … AI models.
Who is this man by the way? Does he work in Google? Did you message Google support about 2.5 pro model being disappeared?
Yes he is working in google. So it is official guys, we won’t be getting access to Gemini 2.5 Pro. An end of an era.
@Payal_Sharma2 @Logan_Kilpatrick @Mahesh_Sutar @Mustan_lokhand @Aakash_Bansal @Jon_Matthews
I wish to thank the google team, No more a consumer of Google AI Models.
It will be a case study in future titled “How to not ruin an AI - Lessons learnt from Google”. Anthropic and OpenAI gonna be the gamechangers.
Still their support replies as if we are experiencing an unknown issue. I have two tickets opened right now.
Has anyone tested if the Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash API is working properly? Also, is 2.5 Pro available in Vertex AI Studio? If the API is working fine, what’s happening in AI Studio looks like a bug.
But what about the message of Mustan_lokhand in this thread? It looks like he means it’s not a bug at all.
I checked the Google employee’s reply to this kind of issue under this post Gemini 2.5 Flash deprecated without warning earlier than shutdown date , and it was the exact same response, but back then 2.5 Flash seemed to return to normal.
Great finding! Have you contacted support maybe? I have but still have no reply.
I tried 2.5 Pro on both the Gemini API and Vertex API, and it’s working fine. However, when I try 2.5 Flash on the Gemini API, I get a 404 error?
{
“error”: {
"code": 404,
"message": "This model models/gemini-2.5-flash is no longer available to new users. Please update your code to use models/gemini-3.6-flash for the latest features and improvements. We recommend you to use the Interactions API.",
"status": "NOT_FOUND"
}
}
Vertex AI Studio does have 2.5 Pro available.
Unless Gemini 4 pro picks up the slack they need to keep 2.5 Pro available. This is unacceptable for paying users.
It’s most likely an AI Studio-level bug, rollout issue, or permission misconfiguration; there’s currently no evidence that the 2.5 Pro backend has been shut down.
I wasn’t using my API in AI Studio just now. The error I received was about 2.5Flash, which says: “This model models/gemini-2.5-flash is no longer available to new users.” I haven’t called 2.5Flash recently
‘Oh, you’re using our model and paying for it? Yeah, we’ll punish you for that.’ Sounds like a decision Google would make.
No Buddy, The Clarification from Google Employee Contradicts it. It is no more available, They clearly made all 2.5 Models deprecated.
@Payal_Sharma2 @Logan_Kilpatrick @Mahesh_Sutar @Mustan_lokhand @Aakash_Bansal @Jon_Matthews
We are asking once again to clarify whether it is a backend problem or the model itself is unavailable for users ? If that’s the case why not deprecate it and post it in your retirement timetable ? What model you are recommending as a replacement model for 2.5 Pro ? 3.1 Pro Preview model only is available which is not a equivalent replacement. We can’t take a downgraded model in the place of superior model. Hence seeking your reply ASAP. Limiting access means making it available for Paid users only, But here you are not even making it available for paid users. For a company like Google, This is not a proper way to communicate. If any decision made, It should be made explicit and a way forward should be provided.
Totally agree with your point, but still Google hasn’t given any answers. I have two opened tickets and no feedback at all. Is it worth to message somebody else? I even sent email to Logan, though without any hope.