I've come to appreciate...particular poses that, for the most part, have become part of the formula for most solo girl sets on many sites. It really surprises and amazes me when sets in several popular sites omit them. I have so much stuff now that most sets that don't include those poses don't make it onto my hard drive.
The other thing that is an absolutel requirement, regardless of anything else, is model eye contact with the camera.
Well, I've pulled down a couple and some are 3d and some are not. No logic to which is which since a few new ones are not. I have not had a chance to actually watch any of them iun VR yet. Will update when I do.
That is probably because it is not a full-fledged site. It is just a landing page within the DDF site. It also does not appear on their list of sites within the DDF main site. Odd. Clearly still in development.
Wait, where are the "No" and "Hell NO!" options? There are maybe 3 women in all of porn that I would consider downloading a non HD video of and they would have to be doing something a-mazing (because I already have every released video ever produced of them...)! All of my non-HD porn has been relegated to an archive drive along with a few million images that are postage stamp sized on a modern monitor.
I just signed up and am looking around now, but DDF has several VR videos! When I search VR it comes back with 61 videos! I will be sure to include this in a review within the next month or so.
Unfortunately, it looks like these are VR but not 3D VR.
I just got a $9.99 email offer and decideed to take them up on it. Filled in the card info, UNCHECKED the two cross sales and clicked sign-up. Error and the card number went away. re-entered it, went to click sign up and noticed that the cross sales had been re-checked. THIS IS HOW THEY GET YOU FOLKS! The default for the page is checked. Anything resets, the boxes are checked again.
I bought a VR headset (HTC Vive) to play games over a year ago, but the gaming environment is still in a developmental stage...like the early days of apps for iPhones. I probably use the thing about 50% for VR porn, I've signed up to (and reviewed) most of the VR porn sites, I have a couple of annual subscriptions to get the weekly VR videos and I have about 5 terabytes of VR porn (just checked...waw!). It is completley immersive and very entertaining. I think Onyx and I are the flagbearers for VR porn here on PU and between us, we cover most of the VR sites and have slightly different perspectives.
If you are VR curious, I strongly recommend that you buy a cheap $20 cardboard or plastic headset for your smart phone and grab a free VR video from any one of a multitude of sites. This will not reflect the video quality of VR, but it will give you a pretty good idea of what it is like.
That's fair. I think all of the new stuff is in HD but many of the better looking models are in older SD stuff. The popular models I mentioned are in HD. I'll change the review to reflect "many" instead of "most"
Interesting that so may responded "don't watch football". I wonder what that means..... I don't really watch it either but I think New England will win because they've been there so many times before.
There is always a site or two that deceives you. For example, any site that charges extra for zips or downloads, but you don't find this out until after you sign up. That really sucks. Mindgeek has a bunch of sites set up that way like Twisty's and Playboy Plus. The taglines usually say "Access to" which is a fancy way to say you can see but not keep.
I often find myself at the sign-up page for sites that don't have very good pricing and move-on. I really think a lot of sites don't understand basic marketing. Example. In The Crack. They have several usage and resolution based tiers of access but the most popular is $39.95 a month. That is a ton of money but I went ahead and joined for one month. One month. $39.95 one time and Fuck you very much. I inquired about annual pricing but they simply have none. None! Clearly, this left a bad impression. Compare that to Vixen. Vixen is currently subscriptions for $10 a month. Holy shit this is an awesome site for $10 a month. They only update 1 or 2 times a week but the stuff is every bit as good as ITC and there are no stupid download limits. For the "special" rate $10 a month, I pretty much didn't care that I was on a monthly subscription. I only recently looked to see what the annual subscription rate was and have been paying monthly for about a year now. So from a revenue stream perspective, I paid ITC $39.95, grabbed what I wanted and left with mixed feelings about the greediness of the site. Vixen got at least $120 from me, which I now know is more than the price of an annual subscription, but I feel damn good about Vixen because they are very generous with the low subscription rate.
At the end of the day, the on-line porn business is no different than any other. The goal is to GET and KEEP customers. Crappy, greedy sites just want a fast buck from you. Good ones know they need to treat you right. That means discounts for annual subscriptions, discounts for sister sites and "Please come back" discounts. I'm really amazed at how many sites don't get that.
My first owned porn video was a VHS tape in the mid 80's. My local video store had a back room and I would buy the videos I really liked. I was given well over 1000 VHS tapes in the late 80s and early 90s as a big family oriented video chain bought out smaller ones and I got the back room inventory that would otherwise have been discarded. I only kept the best few of those though and now all are long gone. Funny to think that I probably have 100 times more HD digital content on a couple of hard drives than I did with many boxes of tapes.
This reminds me of the statistic that says 75% of Americans think they are smarter than average and that 80% think they are Democrats..... Good to know that so far we are honest with others and ourselves here at PU. :-)
Ever notice how movies that you know got bad critic reviews actually have pretty good reviews on Netflix or Amazon? That's because the people reviewing like the genre or subject or cast, chose to watch the movie and in most cases actually paid for them and THEN chose whether they liked it, 1-5 stars. So there is a known psychology about why you might rate a site higher than a reviewer. You wanted to go there and you paid for it. My average site rating is 81.1. Why would I want to sign up for a site that rated less? (Unless it was a new site or I wanted to visit it to write a review...or it had a particular model that I liked...)
What I think is interesting is when PU reviews differ significantly from TBP reviews or when, occasionally, TBP misses some key aspect of a site that makes it better or worse. At the end of the day, TBP writess professional reviews and gets revenue from referrals. Reviewers at PU, although we do occasionally get rewarded for our reviews in the weekly drawings, generally are not professionals and don't have anything to gain from our reviews other than letting people know the good and bad about sites. As the cyber porn Neighborhood watch, I'm not sure anyone is really expecting our reviews to be spectacular, just honest.
I started buying annual subscriptions for my favorite sites and have maybe 8 now (Met Art, Femjoy, Hegre, Watch4Beauty, MPL Studios and some VR sites)..about the same money as I would have paid for a year of monthly subscriptions for just two sites (2x $30 avg x 12 mo=$720 vs. 8 x $90 avg=$720). Oddly, that still leaves enough $ to visit other sites for a month. So right now I probably have subscriptions to 11 or 12 sites including a couple of sites thrown in for free with longer term subscriptions (i.e. Playboy and Naked News for a free month with the $99 lifetime subscription to Mr. Skin). Damn, that seems excessive...but after spending over $100 a month on just 4 sites a month for over a decade, I finally decided to see if I could be a little smarter (and honest with myself) about it. The trick is waiting for the deals on annual subscriptions.
The folks at Mr. Skin seem pretty busy these days. I signed up for their lifetime deal and have since been offered several others for $99. Today it was this Interactive GF site. Funny how I just asked PU folks about it yesterday....
Now....I just went straight to the site to see what the regular prices are and notice there is NO monthly option. There is a trial (one scene, $0.95), a 90 day sign-up ($59.95) and a 1 year sign-up ($119.40). If I didn't know any better (I don't), I might think these guys are cash strapped...either that, or they grossly overestimated the appeal of interactive material and invested too much into it.
I was once asked if I wanted to invest in a then-popular strip club. I thought about it and decided to pass. The club was gone a year later.
Producing a quality web site these days takes money. A lot of money. And the revenue stream is only as good as the continuous flow of content. Now, if somebody asked me if I wanted to invest, say, $50k in Met-Art, I'd think about it after seeing the books.
And the term "owner" here is a bit of a misnomer. There are really not much in the way of assets to own. All the physical or virtual assets are leased, the talent is contracted and everything, even the content, has roughly a 5 year useful life. It is a business.
That said, if you know of a site that scores 90 or above here on PU that is for sale with management intact, I'd like to know about it. I was lucky enough to retire very early and could always use another hobby with the potential to break even.
Hi Amanda, Thanks for the reply. I honestly can't recall the name of the pay-to-play site. May have been life Selector. I remember a teaser that allowed you to get a few choices in and then hit you up for tokens or something so you could keep playing. Seemed rather expensive as I recall...the cost seemed roughly the same as a live chat model. Life Selector looks like it might have been it.
In the isn't that funny department, I think I had a copy of the CD called "Penthouse Interactive Photo Shoot, Volume 1", hosted by Bob Guccione and released in 1994. It was interactive in the same way as these sites (well, except it was a photo shoot, not sex), and at the end you were critiqued by the voice of Bob Guccione himself. It was interesting the first time, OK the next ten times and cheesy after that. So the concept is far from new.
In a more pragmatic sense, I think a lot of porn consumers may be editing their own videos anyway. I do. Who has time these days to watch a 30 minute porn video that has a 5 minute lead-up, 10 minutes of fellatio and a 5 minute hand job at the end. The way to make this concept work in my mind would be to provide a monthly subscription rate, then allow the subscriber to build and DOWNLOAD his/her video after creating it to suit his/her specific tastes. BAM! New concept!
Oh, I just noticed that these two sites ( InteractiveGirlfriend and Life Selector) must be owned by the same group because the videos are the same. Maybe they can use my idea above....
I look at this site and wonder if it is any better than a regular site. There used to be a similar "pay to play" site that is now gone, I think. Has anybody tried this one?
I have used email, phone and live chat but prefer live chat followed by phone. Most of the better billing sites have live chat and several of the better porn sites do, too. My biggest issue is always with account logins while I am travelling.
I have been a member of this site a few times and just circled back around after 2 years or so. There is no preview and I can't tell if the site is generating new material or not. Funny that it is a Met Art site but isn't in the Met Art site list.....
I have annual subs to last 3 above plus SexBabes, I think. Naughty America has too many "mature" porn stars for me, though. Wankz might have been the site I had a lot of trouble with initially but finally got it dialed in with my player. I'll have to go back and really look at the video quality again. You need to try SexBabesVR. I think there may be some samples on PornHub.
Hey, not to draw this out much further, but does the MOVING in the VR videos at CzechVR bother you any? Some go forward and backwards, some tilt and some just go up and down. This is the only "top" site I can think of where the camera moves. (Lot's of lesser VR sites have camera shakes)
I grew up in Fort Lauderdale literally 3 blocks from the beach and I spent a lot of time there. Because of the times and the location, I grew up thinking EVERYONE under about 40 was fit, sun-bleached and tanned. (I looked like Peter Frampton back then...complete with the long hair.) College in Florida was the same way. I honestly don't remember any overweight girls and only remember 2 guys, frat brothers, that were overweight. I truly didn't know any better. Then I lived in Atlanta, where the refined, poised, well coiffed blonde southern-bell type altered my views of beauty somewhat. After that it was a 20+ year stint in Pennsylvania where I coined the term "Pittsburgh-10" which means a 6. Average age there is about 60 and nobody is even remotely fit.
So historically, I'd say the fit girls of my youth influence the definition a lot. (Look up Gabby Reese at 22...like that.) But I do think there are a few models in porn (on Met Art or Femjoy) that could stop a 747 in mid-flight with their looks (because everyone would want to get a better look)...even with their clothes on.
Oops. Another novel. I guess I pick "Something else"
OK, I went back and looked at the VR vids I kept, which were the ones of girls I thought were reasonably attractive. None had the neon make-up. I did notice a very heavy and kind of unusual use of darker eye shadow though, which may be a signature item for the make-up artist that they use. The most recent one I have is #122. One of the 2 girls in that video has highly exaggerated smoky eyes.
(One thing I didn't mention before is how annoying it is when a VR girl plants a fake kiss on the camera. They do that a LOT here.)
In general, although a few of the girls are quite pretty, I do not think most of them exceed amateur quality and there is a certain roughness to some that defy explanation. (i..e bushy or very thin-line eyebrows, bad teeth, excessive bad tattoos, mediocre figures..) But I'm just an American asshole who likes Met Art and avoids the amateur sites, so my opinion is completely subjective. Clearly there are a lot of people who like this site....probably mostly Czechs! :-)
As for the poll you linked, it a voting poll based on number of votes, quantity, not necessarily quality. A similar type of poll consistently ranks the Olive Garden as the best Italian restaurant in my area. I would and have have ranked Wankz, Sexbabes and Badoink above this one.
Just for the heck of it, I'll give you three videos that I think are perhaps the reference standard when it comes to VR...at least they are my reference standard. They are well produced and make the absolute most of the girls in them.
1st: SexbabesVR - Romance in the Garden with Nancy A.
2nd: BadoinkVR - Patio Pussy pounding with an unnamed actress
3rd: WankzVR - Casting Couch with Leah Gotti
OK, that's it. I should be writing a review or something...... :-)
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
