|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Dealing with "Stream Only" Sites |
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-11-16 12:46pm - 2962 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Dealing with "Stream Only" Sites Any additional thoughts here? Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:01pm | |
|
||
| 11-11-16 01:49pm - 2962 days | #2 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
I'm really of two minds on this. The porn hoarder in me wants to have download links and be able to build up my personal collection. I indeed have over a terabyte dedicated to that. On the other hand, I've been in a situation recently where I haven't had access to that collection because my PC's power supply died and my Mac can't currently read NTFS (I plan on fixing that soon). I have found that I simply am not missing the collection that much. I look at streaming traditional movies versus purchasing DVDs / BluRays. I used to have a collection of DVDs of around 500 movies. With streaming options, I've whittled that down to around 70 I think. Those films are either very hard to locate, or favorites I watch several times a year. I've been very happy with the streaming option provided by Netflix for quite sometime, but unfortunately that library seems to be shrinking lately, not growing. So I feel somewhat more secure about purchasing digital titles on Amazon, as I know they'll still be there if I go back to look at them a year later. Maybe this is the format that porn needs to follow: A combination of streaming and digital purchases. Here's my idea of a fair streaming-only site: A site with streaming capability that also uploads its content on a larger, more stable, "clips" site. When I sign up to their streaming, I get unlimited viewing to their content, but I also get 10 coupons a month that can be redeemed on the clip site to digitally "own" one of their scenes on that site. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 11-13-16 05:27pm - 2960 days | #3 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:02pm | |
|
||
| 11-13-16 08:10pm - 2960 days | #4 | ||
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
For me, streaming only fits my viewing habits more these days. I would not say my hoarding days are fully over, but they are drastically subdued for one major reason: Time. I simply cannot dedicate the time needed to look through entire sites every month anymore; nor do I really have the desire to. Every one in a hundred scenes (or more) I connect with a performance and instantly say "I'm going to want to rewatch that!" and that is the one I download. Most of the time, however, I skip through the scenes, check out bits of action that I think will interest me, and move on. Streaming is ideal for this, and it is behavior I used to exhibit before streaming existed, but I would simply do it with fully downloaded scenes and then pop them in the vault because I'd already bothered to download them. Now I can skip the whole downloading step while browsing and only keep the scenes that really grab my attention. Often with sites that I know I'm going to be subscribed to for a long time, I'll just "favorite" the scene without even downloading it. The hoarding is really just that for a lot of us, the downloaded content isn't being video with any frequency, sometimes not even twice, and I personally don't believe that benefits anybody. I don't want to have to build a huge server to host my content anymore if somebody else will do it for me. I like that scenes are getting better organized, not just by performer name but also with esoteric industry terms and subjective descriptions of body parts. The search engines on these large network sites have never been better. Also, frequently, when I do go back into my archives to look up a particular scene, I'm disappointed when I realize it isn't HD, or it is shorter than I recall, or some other detail that leaves the experience wanting.
Firstly: I must point out that I never said $30, and frankly were I to sign up for a streaming only site, I'd expect it to be far cheaper. Netflix is $10 ($12 for 4K), Amazon is $8.25, Hulu is $8 — I'd expect a porn site to be in this range if they are eliminating or limiting downloads. Secondly, I mostly believe Porn's Golden Era was years ago, not today. If you want to call today Gonzo's Golden Era, that I'd have to agree with. There isn't a fetish you can't find and there's pretty much a continuous stream of it at a rate that is proportional with its obscurity. I believe the reason for this is the bottom-shelf pricing that porn is budgeted at. Movies use the same sets, the same scripts, the same directions for the performers, over and over again. The sites that do try to come up with plots and characters pretty clearly don't leave much time for rehearsing and usually settle for the take where the performers didn't completely butcher their lines. However if you jump back to the late 70s, there were porn films that were attempting to compete with Hollywood in both ambition and acting. Sure, people were going to have sex on camera, but they were going weave you a story to pull you in. They spent money on costumes and locations, they had scripts that the performers had actually memorized. I'm one of those optimists that believes that porn, at its heart, is an art form, and denying that hurts both pornography and art in general. There will always be shitty, low budget productions where the sex is all that matters, but it would be nice to see the industry be willing to spend more money than the budget of a typical 1-year-old's birthday party and actually take a risk for the sake of artistic integrity and exploration. Do I expect it to happen anytime soon? No, not really. However stacking the financial gains in the favor of the studios a bit more might lead some producers to start taking those risks again. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | ||
|
|||
| 11-13-16 09:58pm - 2960 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
My take: I guess I'm just a hoarder. I've been collecting porn for a while now. But the truth is, I collect it, but hardly ever look at it once I've downloaded it. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Why collect, if you don't look at photos and videos? I know I've collected some great photos. And some great videos. So why don't I look at them, after I download them? The urge to collect is what drives my porn collection. I don't feel I should support streaming-only sites. I'm an Amazon prime member. I enjoy watching the streaming videos. If the video is really great, or has some special enjoyment for me, I will sometimes buy the movie or series to own. Because I plan on watching the video whenever I want. But that seems like a different system than a streaming-only porn site. In my mind, anyway. Being an Amazon prime member is more than just for the videos, of course. But the videos are a large part of the membership benefits, for me. | |
|
||
| 11-14-16 05:17am - 2960 days | #6 | |
|
jook (0)
Active User  Posts: 325 Registered: Dec 22, '13 Location: jersey city |
I just did some catching up after a personal absence and am happy to see such a thread. WG, I agree with most everything you say, a turnaround in my thinking from when I first joined this site. I did not have the benefit of the collective wisdom of veteran members at the time, not that I'm that much more enlightened now. I wasn't aware of the drawbacks of streaming then. I only bring this up because I'm guessing that many pornsters aren't as concerned with streaming as the PU membership. I think it's a losing battle to get streaming sites to change their ways if they have support and are profitable. Sort of like when Bill Clinton said to HW, "It's the economy stupid." [Sorry, couldn't help but bring politics into this, haha.] I know that TBP doesn't deduct for streaming only sites. But I don't think it's a big deal as long as it's made clear about the streaming, something I think they do in their cons section. I especially like your suggestion that an inclusion be made in all member reviews that a site is streaming. I'll go a step further and suggest that it be mandatory to state streaming, non-streaming or both be included in reviews. I agree that streaming sites need to restructure their pricing and I think to a small extent, that this is starting to happen. However, it's all about money. There are a handful of sites (pointed out on PU) that have different levels of membership. Unfortunately, most such sites are not transparent about their pricing policy. Some charge a ludicrous amount to get downloads. I do respectfully disagree that xx points be deducted from a review because a site is streaming only. The first issue I have with that is with sites that are upfront about streaming only. Why should they automatically be penalized if the consumer knowingly joins? [Before you call me hypocritical for doing just that in a fairly recent review, the reason for my point deduction is this review had more to do with the site not being upfront to the general public about streaming only even though I was aware of it.] In addition, and more importantly, if the system was changed to require a mandatory reduction in score for streaming, that opens a can of worms. One could argue that a lousy credit card biller, downloads that are less than stellar, sites that have poor navigation, sites that have no rhyme or reason to naming, blah blah... all require a point deduction. I proposed once before having a form for reviews that address such matters as streaming, cc biller, etc., be implemented here. Many sites have review forms. PU has a form but it is too free-form. I think a structured form would be enormously helpful. This does not necessitate eliminating a comments section. Another reason for a form - I have noticed at least several very brief unhelpful reviews as of late as well as in the past. I was guilty of the very same thing when I joined and had a few of my reviews rejected for that reason. I didn't know better because I didn't take the time to get the lay of the land or read the guidelines. For that I am guilty. However, I'm guessing many or most newbies act similarly and am not taking a personal shot at anyone. Regardless, the problem would be mostly eliminated with a form. I think the issue you raise has more to do with empowering the consumer with knowledge. Hence my argument to overhaul the review system here, which I think is at least one of the things you are saying. Thanks for bringing it up. | |
|
||
| 11-14-16 08:26am - 2960 days | #7 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
Most of the gay sites are still downloadable but there are many niche ones which are going streaming only. I found the military sites which deal with older movies and DVDs are now streaming only. The big company which is streaming only is Staxus and they offer downloads if you buy a year long membership at over $300. Not many can afford that one. I don't like this trend and hope the main ones I use don't go down this path. The reason they do is it is profitable as users will keep reupping to get their jollies from their favorite videos. The same thing is happening with photos as many sites are either doing away with this option or not updating the older stuff they have. I download what I want and will not join a streaming only site. "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 11-14-16 09:34am - 2960 days | #8 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
$300 for a yearly membership? That's freaking expensive. Some of the MetArt sites offer a life-time membership for around $500-$700. That's $500, with no more fees, for the life of the site. Or you can get a yearly membership to many major sites for $100 or less. | |
|
||
| 11-15-16 10:02am - 2959 days | #9 | |
|
bibo (0)
Suspended Posts: 179 Registered: Sep 16, '10 Location: GER |
At the end of the day, it's a free market and companies are entitled to sell their material however they want. Some are trying download limits (which is by far the most customer unfriendly method), some are using upsell strategies to unlock more content, some are using a ticket system (i.e. 4 downloads per months). My personal opinion is, that with the abundance of available websites out there, everything that restricts the customer from getting what he wants is leading to negative reputation. It only promotes the big companies, that are updating frequently, offer all of their stuff for download AND can afford to do that for a good price. If someone with a decent grasp of software and computers wants to circumvent streaming only, he will find a way to do so. So basically, you can not protect material with DRM these days. In the end, quality and quantity is all that matters.
This! I'm following a similar path. I've got TONS of stuff on my hdd's rotting away, just to get purged every now and then when I seem to run out of hdd space and don't want to get yet another external drive. The keepers are going to their specific folders, the rest is going to hell. It is more of a psychological thing. As some people already pointed out, they are more than happy with streaming only. So, for the question how streaming-only should or should not affect the review score: I think it should not! But it HAS to be made absolutely clear what limitations you have to expect before joining a site. Edit: I don't know why I messed up the /quote, but I somehow did. Guess my grasp of software and computers is not that good. :D | |
|
||
| 11-15-16 03:17pm - 2958 days | #10 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Let me try and fire back on a few things here: First, Jook raised some concern about docking a site a certain amount of points for being stream only and was wondering about standardizing reviews in general here at PU. While standardized reviews is a bit off topic the two go hand in hand. There was a big ass kerfuffle when the thread “What Should a PU Review Include” thread made it's appearance during the last Stone Age (at least in internet years) about what people should include in their reviews here. It pretty much ended with people agreeing to disagree – meaning that it's a free country and a free PornUsers so people should contribute however much they do or do not want to and that we celebrate it all. In my opinion, no one has to dock a stream only site any set number of points in a review, I'm just advocating for it as a small attempt to beat down this growing trend and make it slightly less appealling for consumers and producers to head down that path. Second, several people noted how their porn hoarding propensities have led nothing more than a bunch of hard drives full of naked bits collecting dust. OK, so you've finally admitted you have a problem (that's always the first step). However, like most addictions there are winners and losers. The winners are the pay sites collecting membership fees from people like us who want to download good quality porn. The losers? We'll unless your porn addiction is taking over your life I'd say that it ain't bad to have a bunch of goodies to look at in the future if you ever want to. I think I'm safe in saying that if stream only was the only game in town, you wouldn't spend nearly as much time on porn (and not nearly as much on memberships). Also keep in mind that all of us are looking at this from the perspective of someone who has already built a private porn stash of epic proportions. Streaming looks good to some of us because some are burning out on the act of collecting or because some have already seen so damn much xxx action that we've fried out our dopamine receptors and don't get that thrill from it so much anymore. In other words, we already got ours. But what about those who have yet to join the PU ranks and who want to build their own collections? It ain't gonna happen under a stream only system. And what happens when you get tired of paying that monthly membership just to look over your “favorites” section only to see that for no reason whatsoever the site dumped some of your favs? Why give up what little control we have as legitimate consumers in an often pirated business for the sake of convenience when the reality is that we would just be letting others decide that whatever is convenient for them will also be convenient for us? | |
|
||
| 11-15-16 08:56pm - 2958 days | #11 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
The answer seems obvious to me: Amazon needs to start selling porn and allowing hoarders to download an app that checks their collection, bit for bit, to see if it matches content in Amazon's collection, and give you credit for it if it does and you've purchased a subscription to that site in the past (automatically verifiable through the payment processors).  "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!"Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 11-16-16 12:32pm - 2957 days | #12 | |
|
Amanda (0)
Active User  Posts: 534 Registered: Jul 02, '15 Location: Montreal, Quebec |
Haha, interesting Amazon graphic there! | |
|
||
| 11-16-16 12:38pm - 2957 days | #13 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
 My thousands of dollars of design education going to good use, lol "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
