I think SS has done this because they have enough images/videos

[makesushi1]

Think about it they have 350 million pics and nearly 19 million videos, a lot of the cost of their business is related to us creators, they have to check new images/videos that means employees, every time they have a sale they pay us. 
From their point of view if they lower the income we get, their costs per sale drop massively, also we would upload fewer images means fewer employees for them which means even fewer costs.
from a shareholders perspective this is great for business, also how far behind are other stock sites? Adobe has 50 million pics, Getty (80 million in 2012), I think they realized they just don't need any more content. 
my point is I don't think they will change their stance, even if 1000 people delete their portfolios with 10,000 images each that would mean losing 10 million pics still leaving them 340 million pics.

I will not be uploading any more but sadly I think that's exactly what they wanted, and im not going to delete the portfolio because I put so much work in and frankly would like to get something back, it saddens me that it will be less than what I was working towards. 

[OceanicWanderer]

53 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

Think about it they have 350 million pics and nearly 19 million videos

Thats very possible.

[Dan Campbell]

Definitely.  Yesterday I had an entire batch rejected for grain, which I found unusual.  I didn't even know about the new payment structure until I came to the forum to complain.

It seems they don't want my photos anymore, and would probably be just happy if I deleted my port.