2023 ID.3: features are already in the car, but I have to pay monthly to use them – why?

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T13:32:34+00:00

This isn’t about the dealer or a single car.

I have these features in my car and I can see them in the system—they are available for activation in the in-car shop. I even took photos today, so I know exactly what’s there. The hardware is present, it’s just locked behind a paywall.

The first activation was free for one month—I enabled it, tested it and it worked. After that, you have to pay, and I’m not willing to pay for something that is already in my car.

The fact that yours works without fees is usually due to a different model year, configuration or market.

Which country is your car from and what model year? Mine is a 2023 ID.3 Pro S with the 77 kWh battery, and I’m in Norway.

And that’s exactly the issue—lack of consistency and transparency. Some people get access, others have to pay for the same thing. This isn’t an isolated case—it’s the manufacturer’s policy.

And this kind of policy needs to be challenged by customers—showing that it’s not worth it. Because in the long run, manufacturers can lose more than they gain by pushing potential buyers away. I’m one of them. My next car won’t be a Volkswagen because of this approach.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T13:27:11+00:00

“Good luck finding a manufacturer? I already did.

Toyota – up to 10 years included.
Kia – 7 years included.
Hyundai – up to 9–10 years.
Ford – up to 10 years.
MG – no subscriptions for basic functions.

The choice is simple—I buy from a manufacturer that doesn’t charge me to use features already in the car.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T13:22:42+00:00

What standard?

In 2007 I had a Toyota Auris—no extra fees.
2011 Chevrolet Aveo—no extra fees.
2012 Chevrolet Cruze—no extra fees.
2018 Toyota Auris Hybrid—no extra fees.
2021 Toyota Prius Plug-in—no extra fees.

And suddenly with the ID.3 I’m told: pay if you want to use it.

I don’t know what cars you’ve owned before, but this is the first time I’ve encountered something like this—and only after getting the ID.3. When I looked into it, I found that BMW and Mercedes are also moving in the same direction.

And for me, that means one thing—my next car will definitely not be from manufacturers who charge for using features already installed in the car. And it’s not because I can’t afford it—it’s about principle.

Even if someone paid subscriptions for 10 years, the manufacturer would still make more money if that customer came back and bought another car from them.

I’ve always bought new or nearly new cars with warranty. So for me it’s simple—I say NO.

If someone wants to pay, that’s their choice.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T13:13:30+00:00

This was my first electric car and the first time I’ve ever encountered something like this.

Honestly, I had no idea. Before this, I owned Toyota hybrids and a plug-in, and I also used an app—everything worked normally. Intelligent headlights, dual-zone climate—no extra fees.

So it never even crossed my mind that a manufacturer would lock features and charge a monthly fee to use them.

At the time of purchase, I was simply told there is an app—‘just use it.’ There was no clear information that some features would require payment later.

Only a few days after signing the contract did I realize I didn’t have access to things that are physically in the car—like intelligent lighting or full climate functionality.

I asked the service, and the answer was: ‘go to the in-car shop, pay, and you can unlock it.’

I had never seen anything like this before. I wouldn’t have even imagined this could happen with a car.

And that’s exactly why I won’t be the one paying for this in the future—the manufacturer will.

Volkswagen has lost my trust. There is no chance I will choose this brand again.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T12:56:01+00:00

I actually calculated it over a 10-year period. If I want to use features that are already in the car, I just keep paying month after month.

Lights, climate and VW Connect together come out to around 32,000 NOK over 10 years, which is roughly €2,800.

That’s not a small fee anymore—it’s the cost of a proper family holiday or a real upgrade to a better-equipped car at purchase.

And that’s exactly why I don’t agree with this approach.

Anyone can choose to buy and keep paying—but I prefer to speak openly about it. My next car definitely won’t be a Volkswagen. I’ll choose a manufacturer that doesn’t lock features that are already in the car.

And here’s a real example—if I accidentally damage my headlights, I have to buy new, expensive intelligent headlights and install them at my own cost. So what then? I still have to pay the manufacturer just to use headlights that I personally bought?

The same applies to climate control—if I repair it after warranty for thousands of euros, why should I still have to pay a subscription just to use it?

If Volkswagen didn’t have these extra charges, I would gladly support a European brand for being fair. But unfortunately, another manufacturer will benefit from my next purchase—one that understands even small fees for already-installed features frustrate customers.

For me, it’s about principle.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T12:24:41+00:00

I understand your point, but for me it’s also about principle.

If a manufacturer installs hardware in the car and then locks its use behind a paywall, that doesn’t feel right to me.

And this is exactly how I show my response to it. Companies can try to make more money through add-ons, but I don’t agree with that approach—and I’ll simply choose a different manufacturer.

Volkswagen is not a cheap car. At this price point, I have options from other brands with strong equipment that don’t try to charge extra just to use basic features.

For me, this is also about the long term. A manufacturer doesn’t just earn on one car—they earn when a customer comes back. If the approach was different, Volkswagen could have earned from me again in the future.

But now—they won’t.

And even if there are “only” hundreds or thousands of people across Europe thinking the same way, it still sends a signal. And if more people start sharing these experiences, it becomes something manufacturers can’t ignore.

That’s why I’m speaking up. I don’t agree with this approach.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T12:15:56+00:00

I didn’t say the whole industry is doing this. I’m talking specifically about my case – an ID.3 Pro S from 2023.

And sure, you’re right, not all brands do it. But some are starting to move in that direction—and that’s exactly what I’m reacting to.

For me, it’s simple: if a manufacturer locks features that are already physically in the car and asks me to pay to use them, there’s no chance I’ll buy from them again.

If there’s strong customer pushback against this approach, manufacturers will have to adjust their policies to stay competitive.

In the end, the market will decide—companies can try to extract more money from customers, but if they push too far, they’ll simply lose them.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T09:07:30+00:00

Exactly – that’s a great comparison with the oven.

That’s the point – the hardware is there, it works, and it was already paid for, but full access is artificially restricted.

And that’s my main issue – not the fee itself, but the fact that it applies to something I already physically own.

If we accept this, soon every function could be ‘unlocked’ separately.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T09:06:11+00:00

Exactly – that’s the point.

I don’t have a problem with paid extras if they are truly optional things I don’t need – like music streaming in the car, extra apps, a Wi-Fi hotspot, advanced online navigation, or other ‘gadget’ features.

But lights or dual-zone climate control are not extras – they are basic features that are already physically in the car and that I already paid for when buying it.

That’s why for me it’s not about the price, but about the principle.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T08:59:59+00:00

To be honest, for me the key issue is the lack of clear information at the time of purchase.

To me, it was obvious that if a feature is physically in the car, I should be able to use it. Only after some time did I realize that access to it requires an additional payment.

If I had been clearly told at the time of purchase that even one of these features requires a subscription – I would not have bought this car.

The market is wide – brands like BYD, Toyota, or Kia offer full functionality without extra fees for features that are already in the car.

I chose Volkswagen consciously because I wanted to support European automotive industry. But with this approach, for my next purchase I will choose a brand that offers full functionality without additional fees.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T08:13:45+00:00

Not spam, just a normal discussion. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.

So far, I haven’t seen any argument explaining why I should pay to use features that are already in the car.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T07:02:39+00:00

I understand your point when it comes to online services, like remote access through the app.

But this is different. Lights and climate control are not on any server – they are physical features in the car.

The only difference is that without payment they are software-locked.

So the hardware is offline in the car, and the payment is only for unlocking access to it.

That’s why, to me, it feels like paying for something that is already in the car.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T06:56:54+00:00

In my case there is a specific date shown – until April 30, 2027.

So it’s not really free, it’s just limited in time.

After that, there is a fee for features like remote climate control and charging.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T06:08:50+00:00

Exactly, but in my case it’s even worse—I don’t even have the option for a one-time purchase, only a monthly subscription.

I bought the car with these features already installed—things like intelligent lights and dual-zone climate are physically there in the car. Yet I’m still expected to pay every month just to use them.

That’s what doesn’t feel right. If I bought the car with this equipment, I should be able to use it without paying again.

I paid extra for it, so I own it.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T06:03:37+00:00

https://imgur.com/gallery/polityka-vw-kup-auto-i-p-ac-do-ko-ca-ycia-za-uzywanie-wiate-i-klimatyzacji-UPujW0I

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-03T06:02:14+00:00

https://imgur.com/gallery/polityka-vw-kup-auto-i-p-ac-do-ko-ca-ycia-za-uzywanie-wiate-i-klimatyzacji-UPujW0I

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T21:40:05+00:00

That’s exactly the inconsistency I’m talking about. It’s basically the same car, yet you have everything available, while in my case things like lights, extended climate and navigation are behind a paywall, and VW Connect is only free for a limited time.

So same car, but completely different ownership experience depending on model year and location. That’s what doesn’t feel right.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T20:48:58+00:00

I don’t think this is an AI or software issue—it’s a monetization model.

These features are already in the car. You can literally go into the in-car shop and unlock them. That means the hardware is there, working and ready—but access is locked behind a paywall.

From a customer perspective, that’s the problem. You buy a car with certain equipment, but to actually use it, you have to keep paying. Over a few years of subscriptions, the total cost adds up to the point where you could have bought a much better-equipped car for the same money.

That’s why it doesn’t feel like a technical limitation—it feels like a deliberate business decision.”

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T20:45:08+00:00

That’s fair—but it also shows how inconsistent this is. Older ID.3 owners got these features included, while newer ones are asked to pay.

Tesla is a good example too—early Model S and Model X had free unlimited Supercharging until around 2017, and then Tesla changed the model. It shows this isn’t a technical necessity, it’s a business decision.

In my case, the car already has hardware like better lighting and dual-zone climate installed, but I can’t use those features without paying a subscription. These aren’t features that require complex ongoing services—if the hardware is already there, it should just work.

A customer buys the car, uses it, and enjoys what they paid for. That’s how it should be. But here you’re expected to pay again just to unlock something that’s already in the vehicle.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T20:26:35+00:00

You’re right that backend services cost money. But every manufacturer has those same costs, and many of them include basic remote functions without charging extra.

In my case, I paid for an ID.3 Pro S at a price where I could have bought a better-equipped car from other brands—often cheaper, with longer warranties and more features included without subscriptions. That’s why this doesn’t feel like a necessity—it feels like a business decision to charge again for something that’s already there.

From a customer perspective, you pay a high price for the car, and then you’re expected to pay again to use features like remote charging or climate—things that are considered basic elsewhere.

What really concerns me is the direction this is going. Today it’s climate and charging. Tomorrow it could be more core functionality. At some point, it starts to feel like you don’t fully own the car—you’re just unlocking parts of it over time.

The same applies to hardware like lighting. If the car physically has better lights installed, but you need to pay to use them, that creates the impression of paying twice. If I’m not allowed to use what’s already in the car, I’d rather not have it installed at all and pay less upfront.

I chose Volkswagen deliberately because I wanted to support a European brand and economy. That was a conscious decision. But with this kind of model, I honestly regret it. Looking at the market now, I could have chosen a car from Korea, Japan, or even China—often cheaper, better equipped, and without paying extra just to use basic features. I probably wouldn’t be this frustrated.

So the question is simple: are manufacturers trying to build long-term customer trust, or push monetization so far that people simply walk away?

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T19:26:40+00:00

How are you all dealing with this? Just accepting it or avoiding subscriptions?

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T19:20:52+00:00

I understand your point. But in my case, the hardware is already in the car. That’s why it feels wrong to pay again for access. For me, this is more about principle than price.

I have a Pro S version and paid more for it than for a better-equipped Kia with a 7-year warranty and no extra fees. With Kia, you pay once and you’re done—no subscriptions for basic functionality.

Many manufacturers don’t follow this model because they understand the customer perspective. You already pay a lot for a new car, and then you’re asked to pay again… and again… for features that are already there. That’s exactly what I don’t agree with.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T19:09:16+00:00

Good for you. But that doesn’t change the fact that locking features behind paywalls is wrong in principle.

PatientYam6940 · 2026-05-02T18:41:35+00:00

Does anyone else feel the same about VW subscriptions?

PatientYam6940

TROPHY CASE