> I know that I wouldn't complain to my card company, but still.
That's exactly the answer - almost nobody will go to his bank saying "hey, I tried to subscribe to porn site and they tried to charge me extra". And as long as nobody complains, such guys can do whatever they want :-(.
> Plus, how many people pay for their porn sit access via check or bank account? My guess is its in the area of < 1%
As far as I know, in Europe it's different (in US everybody-and-his-dog has credit cards, not so in Europe).
> I'd be interested to know if there are any good Danish sites out there
Which raises an interesting question - what countries are generally good in making good adult sites?
For instance, I've got an impression that Russian sites are usually pretty poor ones (to put it mildly); with SlavesInLove being a notable exception.
> creditcard users have to pay an additional fee of 1,59 € -.-
Which is most likely a violation of VISA/MC rules, which means that if somebody cares to complain to VISA/MC, they might end up in trouble. I don't feel like complaining at this time though :-).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ iPod support (480x360x800kBit/s)
+ many tons of content
+ frequent updates
+ multi-language site
Cons:
- while category searches are present in public area, they're are absent in member area
- non-iPod videos are a waste of bandwidth
- content is merely a collection of 15-30 min clips; no stories behind
- content is not unique/exclusive
- 'YAWN' (Yet Another Wanking Network) content
- no chapters in iPod videos
- site navigation
- upsells
Bottom Line:
When looking at home page of SexVidsOnPod, it doesn't look too bad - it looks as a collection of clips formatted for iPod. It is pretty obvious that it will be 'YAWN' (Yet Another Wanking Network), but sometimes you don't need more than that.
When going inside, things go worse though. The biggest disappointment I had with the site is that while category search is available on home page, it is not available in member area, so all you get is just a plain list of clips (even without ability to jump somewhere).
iPod encoding isn't bad, with 480x360x800kBit/s it should look not bad not only on iPod (which I've tested), but also on bigger devices (like AppleTV, which I don't have). Unfortunately, iPod videos don't have 'chapters' in them, which makes viewing on iPod less enjoyable even for these rather small clips. They claim they also support iPhone, which is most likely the case, but with iPhone having screen of 480x320, it isn't clear to me whether 480x360 will look really good there.
On the other hand, non-iPod encoded videos are a joke. 3Mbit/s with a picture of 640x480 (which is definitely very far from being crisp) is definitely a waste of bandwidth.
Bottom line: could be worth it only if you want iPod videos, have no interest in watching them on PC and don't really worry about content. As I hardly can imagine such a person (especially as there are more and more sites providing iPod as an option), hence a low rating.
Deal :-). And what do you think about my idea (not sure if you've read it or not) to "penalize" sites with such PRE-CHECKED upsells by deducting, say, 10 points from their ratings (clearly stating that 10 points were deducted for PRE-CHECKED upsell during sign-up)? I'm likely to do it in the future (unless somebody gives me a reason why it's a bad idea), and would like to see more people doing the same thing; I'm not sure, but if webmasters read this site (and at least some do), it MIGHT help.
But if we shout about it loud enough, don't you think that it could help Epoch (and sites using Epoch) to stop it? After all, if SUBSTANTIAL portion of people will prefer CCBill to Epoch, sites using Epoch will be in disadvantage.
> There really is no defense for this practice.
IMHO there are different ways to defend ourselves:
- post BEWARE comments on PU;
- boycott such sites based on the logic that "if site is trying to swindle you one way, they're likely to do it in other ways too";
- MOST IMPORTANT: if hit by such thing, ALWAYS going to your bank and disputing the charge; I was told by banking guy that if some merchant starts to get many disputes, it can become VERY expensive for this merchant, and at some point merchant can even lose his credit card processing license.
> By all means it's certainly NOT only this site but a beware for ALMOST every site.
I don't think that I had ever seen it for CCBill sites, and I think it's ALMOST every Epoch site (that's why I don't normally join Epoch sites, unless they're VERY special). Do you have similar experience?
At last, webmaster trying to defend this kind of thing, how cute. Then could you please tell us if (as you're saying, I have somewhat different words to describe it) it is "WELL above" and "CLEARLY stated", WHY do you have it PRE-CHECKED?
IMHO there is ONLY ONE possible reason to have such things PRE-CHECKED: to hope that user isn't careful enough and will press "Subscribe" button without noticing it. And please don't tell me it's done "for my own convenience": if I would want to spend another $30/month, I wouldn't care to take another click to join. But other than that, all other explanations are very welcome.
> The worst is the file-sizes. Some 1.3 Gb others up to 2,0 Gb for 20-25 minutes video.
Ouch, what is the bitrate then? 2G for 25 minute video should be around 10MBit/s, shouldn't it?
Well, IMO 1G/day isn't too bad; not really good, but not too bad. On some other site I've seen that they're doing it because of password sharing; I think there should be better ways to deal with password sharing, but at least they said so :-(.
Interesting that I've already argued with one guy here on PU that 10G/month isn't a problem for most :-), but IMHO 1G/day is worse in a sense at least for me (while I cannot imagine DL-ing more than 10G from single site/month, I can DL all the stuff I need in one day, and it can easily be more than 1G). So, from my perspective 1G/day is worse than 10G/month :-).
And about CCBill - did you try to tell them that as the essential service restriction wasn't advertised, you can consider disputing transaction via your bank? Occasionally it does help :-)
> 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?)
I'm not a member anymore (may re-join in the future), so my comments are about 3-4 months out of date.
> but was turned off by the poor main page which gives very little
> imformation (no update info, no quantity of product info, no models
> info), just random photographs.
You're right, but inside it is MUCH better than outside :-).
> Also, there was no reply to my e-mail questions about the site (usually > a very bad sign).
Probably because they're Russians (that's for sure) and could have problems writing in English. Usually it's better to stay away from Russian sites, but this one is an exception.
> Is there lots of content?
Yes; most updates are photos (decent quality), but even my video collection (not full) is more than 100 of their clips (5-10 minutes length each).
> How often do they update?
I think twice per week (or maybe once, don't remember exactly), but updates are either photosets, or quite small parts (older about 5 min, newer 10min or so) of larger videos (some videos span up to 10 such updates, and there is usually a VERY good script behind the video).
> I thought there used to be a lack of videos. Is that improved now?
See above.
> What is the quality of the videos?
The most recent ones were VERY decent 640x480 WMVs at 800-900kBit/s.
Bottom line: if you're into this theme (on milder side, with more of psychology than physics and even less brutality), you should try it (obviously that's assuming that they didn't turn to worse during these few months I'm not a member).
PS If you decide to join, please tell me how it goes - I might re-join too :-).
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.
