This is a valid point. I've gone to sign up for a SaaS before, read through the features list and thought it was great, and then realised they've split all the features up among plans and I'll need to pay more than I was expecting to. Obviously this just means that the highest tier plan is what they think all the features together are worth, but I often find that for smaller SaaSes, the desire to have 3 plans shapes how they do their pricing, so the highest "all inclusive" plan is more expensive than it otherwise would be if there was a single plan.

It's more like yjftsjthsd-h said in their comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24548071): They suddenly make me work for it.

Sure, this might be the worth of the features, but then I might get frustrated: "I want features X and Z, but they are only in the most expensive tier. In the cheaper one I can get just X, or X and Y. So now I have to pay for X, Y, Z although I only need X and Z."

Another example: johnreed fitness gym offers three tiers. They are basically the same, but give you more flexibility in where you train. If you are a member for one year, you move up one tier for the same price. It's not clear whether or not my contract would get cheaper if I start at the highest and after a year move to the price of one lower.

So basically they made me work and think a lot just about pricing for some service I actually want because I don't want to think about it. Which made me choose another gym altogether.

But how many times have you said "I was going to give you money, but now that you're giving me options on how much money to give you, I'm not going to give you any."

Wouldn't it be more like "I was considering giving you money, but if you're going to make me work for it then I'll reconsider"?