Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ black guys and blondes, as advertised :-)
+ guys have impressive dicks too
+ huge amount of content
+ decent video quality (though, guys, with 1500kBit/s you can do better than 640x480)
Cons:
- swindling attempt (see my comment)
- recent videos have strong 'seen one of them - seen them all' subjective feeling
- models are not exactly gorgeous
- very inconvenient navigation
- no way to see what the video is about without going to pictures (which is a separate section) or home page
- cameraguy work and lighting could be better
- $35/mon price is above average
Bottom Line:
After escaping (as I hope) swindling attempt described in my earlier comment, I signed in with Blacks on Blondes.
At first, I was surprised how inconvenient their navigation is; to see what video is about before downloading I needed to go both to pictures section and home page, and look for the same clip pictures and description.
Second impression was that video quality is not bad, though cameraguy work and lighting could be improved; models aren't exactly top models but mostly are ok.
The third impression was that 'seen one of them - seen them all', which is especially true for the recent clips. After reading positive reviews here on PU I've tried a few clips from the middle, and I should agree with other reviewers that earlier videos were indeed more interesting.
And that was the fourth and final impression of the site: they do have a huge collection, but recently started to move down the hill.
Bottom line: if you're into black guys with big dicks on white girls, and you don't mind high price, it can easily be the site for you.
> but i don`t think that my given information are wrong......
I didn't mean it; what I've actually meant is that I'd like to see more site-specific information which would show why your ratings are different.
> they took another which didn`t accept credit cards or something like
> this. i also think there was no possibility to dl in one part,
> and the older videos had weak quality (wasn`t it dl as a zip?!) you
> are a member of that side right now? does anything changed?
I'm/was a member of a few other kink.com sites (see my reviews of UltimateSurrender and SexAndSubmission), and yes, their billing/authentication system is still a pain in the neck (they do provide alternative billing though, so occasionally it does work :-) ). As for DL as a zip - they usually do have it (you can get whole single episode as a zip, which is enough for me). Cannot be 100% sure about fuckingmachines.com without being their member, but usually such things are quite consistent across different kink.com sites.
Not sure that you're listening out there (your reply was posted way too long ago), but on any account your support did an extremely poor job. First of all, keeping customers happy is a cornerstone of doing long-term business (opposed to hit-n-run businesses), and deviating from it have already cost you lots of customers (for instance, myself - I won't join the site with such a comment and such a webmaster reply).
Second, to make their customers happy, both VISA and MC have policies which allow to challenge any credit card charge quickly and efficiently (and which can be barely argued in case of website subscription with no goods physically delivered); I wonder why JoshP didn't come to his bank and say "I want to dispute the transaction of $XX.YY which appear on my statement on DD MMM 2006. I wasn't satisfied with service provided and wasn't able to solve it contacting the merchant" - usually this is enough to get full refund via your own bank (takes a few weeks but eventually does work).
PS Or maybe support is run by one of site dominatrixes? That would explain attitude, but still is a very poor way of doing business.
> I hate those pre checked boxes
Do you mean that you did run into such 'free-trial-renewed-at-price' pre-checked boxes when subscribing before? Are they common now? (this was my first time running into such thing, so I was really upset with it).
Just in case if you do care (if not, please ignore):
What I think is the biggest problem with your reviews, is lack of specific information about the sites - all reviews are quite similar to each other, and it is very difficult to understand why do you rate site higher or lower. I was going to put 'no' trust rating exactly because of 2 your reviews: this one and 'Obscene machines'. Reviews are very similar to each other, and it is not clear why one of the sites got much higher rating (14 point higher - that's quite a lot). Then I went to site home pages and was able to guess what's the difference between them, so your ratings are likely to be consistent (so I didn't put any trust rating for now), but IMHO it should be obvious from reviews too.
Also a side note: as you're into this niche, did you try fuckingmachines.com? It would be nice to see your review/rating of them too (so it will be possible to compare it with other 2 sites you already reviewed).
When trying to subscribe to Blacks On Blondes, I've got a form with name, card number and expiration date (as usual), which also had 2 checkboxes pre-checked (!) - each one for 1-day trial auto-renewable at $20-something each. If this is not an attempt to swindle, what is?
Not sure whether it was done by site itself or Epoch (it was on Epoch page), or both; still - BEWARE and read carefully the whole form before submitting, or you can end up paying $50/month more than expected.
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros:
+ amateur site with girls who don't looks as acting
+ run by a group of gangbangers themselves
+ they claim models are amateurs who just like to gangbang, and I tend to beleive them
+ everybody seems to have fun
+ ample amount of content
+ community of gangbangers (contacts of girls doing parties etc.) - didn't try myself though :-)
Cons:
- have to confirm observation on 'too many gaps' in video;
- amateurish lighting and camerawork (hey guys, amateur site doesn't necessarily mean amateurish video);
- back when I was member, video quality was so-so
- not so frequent updates
- back when I was member, design was pretty uninspiring (seem to change by now though)
Bottom Line:
West Coast Gang Bangs is an interesting site which seems to be run exactly as they describe: they do look for girl who wants to gangbang (in exchange for money or footage) and gangbang her. Girls usually like it though, so it's not only about money at least for most of them :-).
It's a stunning difference from most of reality sites which just pretend that they shoot things for real (come on, does anybody really believe a story behind famous BangBus that guys just roam streets in a bus, find a girl and fuck her?). I'm not going to argue whether it is good or bad, just want to point difference of West Coast Gang Bang in this regard - it DOES look that these guys are doing it for real, which might be a turn on for somebody (like myself).
Camerawork at the time I was member was amateurish, and quality of videos was mediocre. In addition, I have to agree with nygiants03 that the way it's edited leaves a lot to be desired - there are lots of gaps within the movie (probably in part because all the guys take turns to camera it), and it hurts overall feeling a lot.
Bottom line: if you're into real amateur gangbang action, it's the site to join; if you're into amateur sex or gangbang - you may want to consider it.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ unique idea (kind of Strip Truth or Dare);
+ players seem to play for real;
+ players seem to have lots of fun;
+ models are of 'girl-next-door' kind, but quite good;
+ decent quality videos;
+ non-recurring subscription;
+ webboard which is still active (despite lack of updates, see 'cons' below);
Cons:
- no more updates;
- game rules are not posted;
- very few guys, some games are girl-only;
- pretty slow and mild action;
- no stills;
- cameraguy work could be better;
- interlacing is visible (hate it);
Bottom Line:
Another "real reality" (= "no scripting") site; does seem genuine play without action being scripted. In short - it's kind of StripGameCentral (see my review of it), but with videos and at least some action. Unfortunately, not updated anymore, which is on the other hand compensated by non-recurring subscription though, so it's a kind of fair deal - pay once and get all they've got to date.
What you get for your money is 12 games, each about 2 hours length, video only. Videos are quite good in quality (640x480x1300kBit/s), though I hate interlacing being visible. Each game starts with players fully dressed and taking random cards to perform, with answering sex questions, undressing and kissing. It becomes more and more hot with time, but in the end it doesn't go further than oral action :-(.
Also I should note that it becomes quite boring after viewing a few games - the same game, about the same questions and dares; bonus games (like "naked twister" and "blowjob roulette" somewhat help it though.
Overall, it looks as a pretty good implementation of an interesting idea, and it's a pity that site owner didn't go with it further; I feel that there is a lot of room for improvement and if some more efforts, it could become a wonderful site.
Bottom line: if you do like pretty mild action and girls undressing, and/or you do like non-scripted site, it can easily be worth a look at one-time non-recurring $19.95.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- videos in iPod format; iPod encoding quality is quite good;
- overall encoding quality is not bad (though in 1500kBit/s it is possible to do much better than 640x360).
- cameraguy work is decent
- quite significant variety of actions (from B/G to group/DP and MILF)
- updates several (5?) times a week
- I like design and navigation (probably they changed it since official TBP review)
Cons:
- iPod movies have no chapters, which makes viewing more difficult; significant minus for iPod-oriented site
- iPod video is only 320x240 (which is not a problem for iPod itself)
- nothing really unique about content on this site; while scenes are (supposedly) exclusive for kickass network, it still doesn't have any kind of action you cannot find elsewhere.
- lighting and post-editing (namely color balance) can be improved
Bottom Line:
This site seems to be 100% clone of kickass.com now.
iPod support does indeed exist (it really plays on iPod), but with 2 drawbacks. One is that videos are available in 320x240 only; while it's not a problem when playing it on iPod itself (it has 320x240 screen anyway), it is a problem for bigger screens such as Apple TV. Second drawback is that clip is not divided into chapters, which makes viewing on iPod more difficult. While both issues would be not too bad for a site that just provides iPod as as one of the options, for iPod-oriented site ithey look as a significant oversight.
Content essentially consists of content of several sites comprising kickass network (such as "10 Man Cum Slam" or "Inseminated by 2 Black Men"), which does provide good variety between these sub-sites, but within each such sub-site most of the videos are of "seen one of them - seen them all" type (except maybe for movies labeled as KickAss - they do have more than one theme behind). Therefore, with more and more regular sites supporting iPod formats, this site is losing uniqueness, quickly becoming 'YAWN' (Yet Another Wanking Network) site.
Bottom line: if you're into iPod porn videos, it's definitely not bad (though lighting and post-editing can be improved); on the other hand, it presents quite standard mix of content, so if you're into some specific niche and want it for iPod, keep looking, as more and more sites seem to add iPod support.
About poll on Aug 9 - as there wasn't more relevant poll one at the time, I've used this one. Let's wait for results of poll I've suggested if it ever comes.
> you are not a voice for the millions of internet users
I'm definitely not, and you're not too BTW. All I write is my opinion only, and I am really surprised the lengths you are going to to make me change it. I've made my point (the one that I strongly disagree with paying that much attention to this kind of criteria) and made it clear to others, that's what this whole site is about, or it isn't? Therefore, I don't see that much to discuss here.
> I ran out of room at the end and couldn't explain it all
Cannot help to say that for me it sounds way too close to infamous "My dog ate my homework" :-).
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
- seems to be run by the people who're bisexuals themselves
- pretty good variety of actions
- quite good models
- lots of relevant extras ("bi position of the week", bi cartoons etc.), making it kind of 'portal'
- seem to organize some shoots themselves with members comments (what members want to see) taken into account
Cons:
- video quality
- video quality
- video quality
- did I already say "video quality?" :-)
- most videos are in other-than-English languages w/o subtitles (not that it matters that much though for this kind of content)
- site design is quite poor
Bottom Line:
The site is quite interesting as it looks not exactly usual porn site with adult content only, but more as a portal for bisexual (mostly MMF) people.
Most of the content is exclusive, but not shoot by them themselves or according to their guidelines; lots of content is bought from now defunct bi sites (they say it openly). This old content is usually horrible in video (and sometimes cameraguy work) quality. Sometimes they shoot it themselves, but (unfortunately) not too often.
Bottom line: if you're into MMF bi sex, you should definitely try it (despite all the shortcomings, other bi sites seem to be even worse), if not - still can be good if you're bored of the same patterns and are not afraid to become bi just because of looking at MMF sex :-); beware of video quality though (very low by today standards, but in this niche there might not be that much choice).
> fast dl speed (up to 672/kbs)!
Is this kBit/sec or kBytes/sec? For kBits/sec it doesn't look too impressive, for kBytes/sec it sounds "too good to be true" :-).
Actually it's about feeling, but bitrate is IMO the next closest thing (provided that you're comparing files of the same type; old .MOV files can look horrible in rather high bitrates).
> my comparison is flawed though it is based on a monthly bill
Nope. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed because (as I strongly suspect) you're paying your power bill according to power usage, not at a flat rate. Do you really think any site would bother with DL limits if they could charge you per-megabyte downloaded (similar to power companies charging per-kW-h)? Come on.
About your test - it is completely irrelevant; as I've said before, it is not about amount you can _download_ in that hours, it is about amount of video you can _watch_ within these hours. According to my calculations, at 1MBit/s amount you can watch in 1.5*30=45 hours is about 20G, which is still higher than 10G limit, but as I really doubt somebody spends all his 'porn' time just watching videos from single site, in practice it shouldn't be a substantial limitation for most users. Still, all of these are just speculations; let's wait and see whether a poll I've submitted ("How much porn do you download per month?") is accepted and then see the results.
> On the trust rating, ask yourself this, did I post anything false in > the review? All the information about the content, quality of, was
> true.
> So what is not to trust? A number?
Exactly. As I've seen other trust ratings, it is pretty common on this site to put 'no' trust rating for people because they're (as the person who sets rating thinks) are consistently inflating or deflating their ratings, despite that nobody questioned information provided or honesty of reviewer; as I understand it, the same logic should apply perfectly to the case when reviewer consistently applies wrong (as I think) criteria to his/her reviews.
> First, I write reviews to give my opinion.
Sure. And I write replies to give my opinion.
So to re-iterate my opinion: I strongly disagree with a concept to get all you can, whether you really need it or not (which you seem to imply in "Nobody said anything about being able to watch all of it. I just want my money's worth. ").
As for your analogy with power bill - I think it is fundamentally flawed. I'd say that downloading the stuff you cannot possibly watch is much more similar to coming to all-you-can-eat buffet and taking all the food you can put on all the plates you can find (but not being able to eat it, which means that they'll need to throw it away); while I've never seen such a thing in real life, I'd expect that somebody doing it most likely will be moved away, and most likely with no refund.
The only potentially valid point you IMHO have is that they should tell about it in advance; but are you sure that you've read their Terms and conditions carefully enough? (sorry, but I'm way too lazy to do it).
About the poll - I've already suggested a poll asking how much people download per month (and those who download less than 10G, shouldn't care about the limit).
As for the 'No' trust - yes, I do think that your reviews are useless for me as they're based on criteria which as I think are completely irrelevant, so yes, I don't trust your reviews, and won't take into account your ratings when choosing the site; it is my opinion and I don't see why I shouldn't tell about it; that's what 'No' trust is for, isn't it?
Can't agree that 10GB/month is a really bad thing; ok, I can reach downloading speed of 10GB/day too, but when I will watch all that stuff (10GB is more than 20hours of video @ pretty decent 1Mbit/s, so I won't get any life besides watching porn, not even enough sleep)?
Also according to poll on Aug 9, most of the site visitors (84%) spend 1-2 hours/day or less watching Internet porn (definition is a bit vague, but most likely it also covers previously downloaded porn), which essentially means that vast majority of this site visitors most likely won't really care about this kind of limit; as the idea of the site is to make reviews useful for others, punishing site that bad for a thing which doesn't really matter for most site visitors is just plain wrong IMHO.
> i wasn't sure what you meant. sorry
No need to be sorry - thanks for noting it instead :-). I've changed wording in review a bit so it should be more clear for everybody now.
> it looks like they have well over 25 games now.
I've took a look at their current public area (home page, tour etc.) and wasn't able to see anything which I didn't see months ago; while they could make lots of new episodes without changing public areas, it doesn't look so.
On the other hand, there can be some misunderstanding regarding term 'game': when I wrote that they have only 5 games, I've meant that they have only 5 big episodes (each is 2 hours long), which represents one game played by the same 3 girls on the same day. During this episode they really play several rounds, with each of them having different 'micro-game' (like "3 Blind Skanks" or "Cunt stretching"). So we both can easily be right - they might have only 5 "big games" and 25 "micro-games".
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- unique idea of "real reality" site: models are playing games of stunts for real;
- game idea modeled after shows like Fear Factor;
- it does look as they play for real;
Cons:
- when I was a member, there were exactly 5 (five) episodes, and no updates for more than a year; it doesn't seem they made any improvements since.
- way too sick for my taste;
- models are obviously playing for money only, and game atmosphere doesn't feel good;
- models are ugly (well, it's difficult to find pretty models willing to do that sick things);
- while there is sex included in each game played, but it is not related to the game and is booooooring;
- shooting quality is poor
Bottom Line:
There is some story behind SickoGames. As it was reported (for example, look in Google for article "FearFactorFuck Morphs Into SickoGames After Legal Threats"), originally SickoGames had domain name FearFactorFuck.com, but they got cease and desist letter from Fear Factor lawyers and as a result indeed renamed site to SickoGames. It looks that at that point site owners actually lost all the interest in site, and stopped making new episodes. Also there were reports of them having problems finding new models (which is not surprising given the things expected from the models).
Site consists of several (there were 5 at the moment) games; each game is played by 3 girls and consists of tasks (there are also 3 guys present, but they don't compete). Each task (which is not too sick) winner gets 2 points, 2nd place - 1 point, and loser not only gets nothing, but should perform a special "wheel of shame" stunt (and that's where things start to go _really_ sick).
There are also 3 sex episodes in each game, but they are not related to the game in any way and just plain boring (not to mention poor cameraguy/lighting quality).
Bottom line: if they would make new games, I'd say that it's a site for lovers of really sick sites with motives of forcing girls doing really sick things (I'm not such a lover, but I'm not judging anybody who is :-) ). But without updates, I don't see much value in it even for such lovers (maybe to pay $25 for 5 episodes once and unsubscribe right after?)
> From signing up for ANY more sites for the next 9 months.
IMHO one site (regardless how poor it is) is NOT worth giving up completely for such a long time (after all, there are tons of decent sites out there). Just my humble opinion though.
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.
