Sora First Impressions: OpenAI’s Video Ambitions Are Promising but Incomplete

There is a certain excitement that comes with the launch of a technology poised to transform a creative field. That sense of anticipation has surrounded Sora, OpenAI’s new attempt at bringing artificial intelligence into video generation. For months, previews of Sora showed remarkable visuals: woolly mammoths wandering through snowy landscapes, characters reminiscent of polished animated films, and imagery drawn from what seemed like a cinematic fever dream. These early glimpses suggested a future where anyone could produce high-quality video in seconds, guided only by a few written prompts.

Now that Sora is available, it is clear that the reality is more complicated than the initial vision suggested. Like many emerging tools, Sora displays a mix of great potential and obvious shortcomings.

It offers a peek at what AI-driven video could become, but right now it feels more like a first draft than a finished product. Some of its most promising features struggle due to technical problems, high costs, and stiff competition from other AI video platforms that already prove their worth.

Although OpenAI’s track record suggests that improvements will come over time, Sora currently feels rough around the edges.

OpenAI’s releases often follow a familiar pattern. Well before a product is ready, the company builds anticipation through selective teasers and bold claims. When Sora was first hinted at, its showcased footage appeared impeccable, raising instant expectations. The AI community wondered if OpenAI would conquer the video space as it had with text (through GPT) and images (through DALL·E). Yet, as months passed, competing tools took the spotlight. By the time Sora finally emerged, the landscape was crowded with other products offering strong performance and consistent results.

Sora’s debut arrived in a world where tools like Runway, Luma, and Hunyuan had already set high standards. These competitors delivered smooth animations, natural movements, and polished outputs that users found reliable. Compared to them, Sora’s late arrival felt like a long-promised guest who showed up after the main event had started. Still, Sora has its merits—chief among them, ambition. The model includes features like Storyboard, which lets users connect prompts or images into coherent narratives. This feature suggests more depth than merely generating random clips. Sora seems built for storytelling rather than isolated visuals. For more background, consider how storyboards have historically guided narrative structures in film.

Even so, ambition only gets Sora so far. Its execution often falls short of its promise. At its core, Sora aims to be a flexible platform for generating video, trying to blend high-quality output with approachable tools. One key offering is the 01 Pro model, accessible through a $200-per-month plan. This tier grants the ability to animate still images, produce 20-second 1080p videos, and access faster generation modes. Features like Loop can create repetitive scenes perfect for background visuals or short social media clips. For dedicated professionals, these are valuable tools.

However, the pricing structure and accessibility are major concerns. The more affordable $20 tier is too limited—it restricts video length and withholds important features. More problematic is the lack of a free trial. Many competitors let users experiment before paying, but Sora does not. Without a risk-free way to test its capabilities, newcomers may hesitate to invest even $20, let alone $200. This absence of a middle ground between tiers feels like a missed opportunity to attract curious hobbyists and emerging creators.

Performance issues also tarnish Sora’s debut. Early users report long wait times—sometimes up to 30 minutes—to generate a single video. These delays stem from technical bottlenecks, overloaded servers, or both. Such obstacles turn what should be a straightforward process into a test of patience. Geographic restrictions add to the frustration. In some regions, especially within the European Union, regulations or other barriers prevent access, leaving potential users locked out. For a tool aiming at a global audience, these hurdles are significant.

Despite these setbacks, Sora’s potential is clear. Some early adopters share creations that are stunning. One might see a dimly lit room where a single candle flickers, casting dancing shadows on the walls, or a delicate fox chasing fireflies through a softly glowing forest. Outputs like these remind people why they were excited in the first place: Sora can turn simple prompts into scenes rich with atmosphere and charm.

Yet for every inspiring success, there are less flattering examples. Sora, like other AI tools, still struggles with certain details. Inconsistent motion, objects behaving oddly, or limbs bending at impossible angles remind users that this technology remains a work in progress.

One user noted a clip where a person sipped water, only for the glass and liquid to drift aimlessly in midair. Another saw a cat’s head vanish halfway through a scene. Such errors highlight how far Sora must go before it attains the fluidity and coherence early teasers suggested.

It would be unfair to say these issues are unique to Sora. Most AI video generators wrestle with realism. Competitors such as Hunyuan and Runway have encountered awkward outputs too, though some have improved through steady iteration. The difference is that Sora’s difficulties feel more pronounced because OpenAI set a high bar with previous achievements. Coming from the company that launched ChatGPT, expectations run higher, and every stumble stands out.

The AI video landscape is fiercely competitive. Unlike ChatGPT, which arrived and reshaped natural language processing in a way that overshadowed earlier attempts, Sora steps into a crowded arena. Runway, for instance, provides pricing plans more welcoming to beginners and workflows appealing to a broad range of creators. Tencent’s Hunyuan impresses with quality outputs at a fraction of Sora’s cost. Compared to such rivals, Sora’s high price and technical quirks make it harder to recommend right now.

This does not mean Sora has no potential audience. Professionals eager to experiment with cutting-edge technology may find its unique features worth the investment. Those willing to pay $200 and tolerate early-stage issues could produce distinctive content. However, smaller studios, educators, or independent creators face steep barriers. Without more flexible pricing or faster improvements, Sora risks alienating those who might have been its early champions.

OpenAI’s history suggests that progress is likely. The company’s first widely known text model, GPT-1, was more of a curiosity than a practical tool. Four years later, GPT-3 arrived and demonstrated remarkable capabilities, paving the way for ChatGPT. That evolution reshaped how people interact with AI. OpenAI’s researchers say that Sora is in its “GPT-1 phase,” implying it is very early in development. If Sora follows a similar path, dramatic enhancements may come in the next few years.

This comparison feels apt. Like GPT-1, Sora is fascinating yet flawed. Its shortcomings—slow performance, uneven quality, and high cost—signal that it is still an early prototype. Yet the underlying concepts and features remain compelling.

Storyboard suggests a future where complex narratives unfold through AI-driven sequences. Loop hints at an era where visually pleasing backgrounds materialize from a prompt. These tools could transform how creators produce entertainment, advertising, or educational content.

The big question is whether OpenAI can adapt quickly enough. Sora’s fate rests not only on technical improvements but on strategic decisions. Lowering the cost of entry could attract more users. Offering a free trial tier might encourage experimentation without scaring off newcomers. Streamlining the process and speeding up generation times would build trust that Sora can deliver consistent results.

At its core, Sora is a promising but imperfect glimpse into AI-driven video’s future. It embodies a bold vision and can produce breathtaking visuals, yet it struggles with reliability, accessibility, and cost. Competitors have established themselves as cheaper, faster, or more refined alternatives. Sora must improve swiftly if it hopes to stand out.

For now, Sora may appeal most to those comfortable testing the boundaries of new technology. They might view the platform as a laboratory for exploring novel storytelling techniques. Others will wait until Sora matures, becomes more affordable, and proves it can deliver on early promises.

It would be unwise to count OpenAI out. The company’s earlier creations show how much it can advance technology in a short time. If Sora is indeed in its early stages, then years from now we may marvel at its progress. AI video tools evolve continually, inching closer to replicating—and in some ways surpassing—human creativity.