It looks that kink.com finally threw away their extremely annoying login system and made a new one. It looks that this new system doesn't throw your login away in half an hour like previous one did (which was VERY annoying). Kudos to kink.com for this long-needed change.
Personally I've never hit it, but I won't be surprised if they do. As most of really good sites, kink.com has technical stuff who're not on par with content to put it mildly. See my comments about their login system, which is one of the most annoying ones in the industry.
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" :-).
> 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.
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- one of the very few "real reality" sites (with no scripts and action developing "as it goes");
- models are extremely good;
- quality is quite good;
- per-episode feedback option;
- ZIPped download option;
- backup credit card processor (increases chances to join if primary one fails)
Cons:
- as usual for kink.com sites, problematic authentication system (intermittent problems logging in if for some reason their system thinks you're a Bad Guy);
- no CCBill as credit card processing option (if they would have it, they wouldn't need backup processor at all).
The site is about girls wrestling half-nude then full-nude, with the winner fucking the loser the way she wants. Wrestling itself seems to be unscripted, rules are publicly available, well-thought out and usually followed (though final fucking definitely has some unpublished restrictions, which probably they should make public). To make wrestling itself more sexual in nature, they've made winning points to be awarded for actions like taking off opponents panties or forced pussy fingering, just to name a few.
One of the most recent improvements they've made is team wrestling - twice hotter action :-).
Bottom line: highly unusual and highly recommended for appropriate niche lovers; completely unique and very well implemented concept.
Follow-Up:
Follow-up: I've re-joined the site recently and should admit it became even better. The most important improvement is adding of "Tag Team" matches - they're more than twice as hot as usual ones. Upgraded and improved login system doesn't hurt either. As a result, I've updated score from 90 to 95 (it's the very first "95" I've ever put on PU).
Good luck in your fight with them. See also my comment here: https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=18002
- if you complain about fraudulent charge to your bank, it will be a good thing not only for you, but for community as a whole (scammers don't like to be fined or their license revoked).
I'm kind of a fan of small devices like iPod and I do like to watch porn on iPod from time to time (usually in half-empty train on the way home); quality on iPod is decent (and I hope that iPod shuttle will be even better), but I've never thought about using phone as porn viewing device. Did anybody try anything like that?
Frankly, I wouldn't be so satisfied with this response. I think that if they have something as "Coming Soon" in member area, they should NOT advertise it in preview. Ok, as a former member who didn't have problems there, I can give them benefit of doubt and agree that they might not do this deception on purpose, but in this case I'd expect them to apologize and pull this stuff from preview area ASAP.
P.S. There is an interesting recent trend, with webmasters replying here on PU more eagerly then to support e-mails. I think next time I have a problem on any site I'll post it as a comment, it seems to have MUCH more chances to be solved this way.
Wait, I didn't compare VideosZ and VideoBox - maybe VideoBox is even more "same old", I didn't try it yet.
And what I've meant when I've wrote that VideosZ is "same old" is more about the overall sad state of adult DVD industry, where 90% of the scenes look exactly the same: fade in - one guy (maybe 2) and one girl (maybe 2) are coming into the motel room - crossfade - she sucks him - crossfade - they're fucking - crossfade - position change - crossfade - he's masturbating to cum on her face - fade out. IMHO, best www sites (and especially networks) currently provide MUCH better variety then average DVD stuff which is all over VideosZ (yes, you can find something good on VideosZ too, but it takes time and effort, and unfortunately there isn't enough of it there).
The sad (at least for me) thing is that from my searches, about 80% of the DVDs are EXACTLY THE SAME for VideosZ and VideoBox :-(. Not sure about updates and where it goes, but at this point I don't think they're that much different :-(.
> When the so-called "gonzo" genre began, there was a lot of creative stuff going on really. But now it's more liekly to be a schmoe with a camera copping a cheap feel off the hired actress.
Well, this is a natural process: when somebody is successful in "gonzo" (or whatever else) genre, immediately lots of guys begin to think "oh, gonzo is the way to make money", and obviously AVERAGE quality goes downhill. But the same natural way they will understand pretty soon that there is NO "easy money" in that genre anymore, and really creative guys will be able to make decent money again (I just hope they didn't leave industry during those difficult for them times).
> but I doubt they really care about the product they put out.
I think THIS is the primary reason for the sad state of US porn, but I hope it will be cured rather quickly (in a matter of a few years) when profits from poor porn will drop to zero, and only the creative and unique DVDs and sites will be able to survive (up to now anybody who wanted to shoot porn, was able to make money, now it's about to change).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ huge selection of DVDs
++ rather good quality
+ search feature with both keywords and categories
+ "DVD Collection" and "Scene Collection" features
+ frequent updates (though with this number of DVDs already existing I don't really care)
Cons:
--- pre-checked cross-sales
-- with a few exceptions, same old, same old.
- no WMV format
- categories are quite limited and mostly about action types (Oral, Anal, DP and so on)
- no option to download whole DVD at once
Bottom Line:
I've tried VideosZ as a typical DVD video site, and it is indeed such a site. For somebody didn't try such sites before, I would describe it as a huuuuge adult video store with your regular DVDs on the shelves, with the only (though very important) difference being that all those DVDs are virtual and are essentially free (as long as you're paying for your monthly membership).
As in your usual "adult video store", DVD selection can be rather large, but unfortunately it's essentially the same old thing, with 99% being very similar, all shoot in cheap motel, with little or no attention to lighting or cameraguy work, with the only difference being what kind of actions you can find inside, but even the different actions are very limited and cannot keep attention for a long time. If actions on the milder side, you usually get better girls, if actions are on wilder side, you usually get worse girls, down to outright ugly ones. Overall, IMHO this whole site is very good in showing the crisis of the adult industry in general, and IMHO this crisis is not because of sites like PornTube or financial meltdown, but because of lack of creativity of those guys who're making DVDs and adult sites. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions, like Private DVDs (though even Private doesn't look too good on VideosZ, not sure if it's just poor selection there, or Private has also went downhill recently) and kink.com web sites, but in general it looks that this whole industry is in the midst of a big creativity crisis.
Back to VideosZ review. As I've said, as a "syndication" site it merely reflects rather sad state of the whole industry. For me it felt rather boring.
Technically site is not bad, with a rather decent search feature (though it would be better to have categories not only on action types, like "Double Blowjob", but also on type of setting). "DVD Collection" and "Scene Collection" are convenient additions. What annoyed me was VideosZ's selection of video formats. In Windows-dominated world I personally consider forcing me to install DivX as an insult, and I'm not crazy about MP4 on Windows PC too; gimme WMV, and I welcome the rest as nice extras, but lack of WMV creates an additional hassle for me which I don't like.
Bottom line: VideosZ a very good example of a "typical DVD site", with the biggest problem being lack of creativity by DVD publishers. The rest is quite ok, and if you're not bored from "same old, same old" stuff, it might be worth a try. I would rate VideosZ at decent 80, but I feel obligated to penalize it for pre-checked cross-sales, so overall score goes down to 75.
> Seems like a unique thing, something I feel I need lately!
BTW, I'm in the same quest to find something unique most of the time, and I've just checked, 9 of my own "top sites" are unique in one way or another, so please feel free to check :-). While some maybe not "your cup of tea", you MIGHT be able to find something, as they're pretty diverse.
> To you which do you prefer the buying the girl you want or the $15 option?
Both :-). Buying a bunch of girls is good to make initial collection, but then $15 option is nice to keep things interesting without much effort.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ stripping girls on desktop as advertised
++ if subscribing, new girl every day
++ girls are hot
++ HUGE variety of girls (comes at the price)
++ variety of outfits
++ several different scenes with the same girl included (from "no nudity" to "full nude")
+ "extra" WMVs and photos of the girl
+ canceling option on site, kudos for webmaster (it shows that they're not looking for "forgotten" subscriptions)
+ option to subscribe OR to buy girls one by one
Cons:
-- stripping only (no toys, no fingering, nothing else)
-- not all the girls dance well
-- mood of some girls could be better
- downloads are HUGE
- CPU-intensive (forget about it if you don't have at least Core Duo)
Bottom Line:
As it was mentioned by other reviewers, this site is VERY different from the others. When subscribing (for free) you get an application on your desktop which shows you dancing girl(s), one at a time. "Free" version is more like "teasers" with no nudity. Fortunately (for both you and site owners :-)) it's easy to pay them some money to get full versions where girls strip completely (but not much else - there are no toys or fingering on the site). They provide TWO options: either to buy girls one by one (at about $2-$4 per girl, which includes 15-30 min of dancing, SOME of it is full nudity), or to subscribe for a month at $15 and get such a girl every day (but girls are random in this case, and you can't choose which do you want).
Overall, it was surprisingly entertaining, with quality being decent (though I've expected better quality for HD and for download sizes, which can easily be 200M per girl), girls being mostly hot and some even being able to dance (though obviously NOT all of them are professional dancers).
Bottom line: if you're not scared away by "stripping only", it's definitely a nice thing to try, provided that you don't have a kid or boss with a bad habit to look over your shoulder :-).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ unique concept
+ original use of AI (Artificial Intelligence) technologies
+ regular updates
+ improving over time
Cons:
-- poor overall implementation
-- poor AI logic, especially with earlier models
-- quite poor conversation (I remember chat bots capable of MUCH more intelligent conversation)
-- video quality of 320x240 MPEG is inadequate for 2010
- need to download the game first, and then need to download upgrade right away
Bottom Line:
After reviewing FuckingGamble, 'Capn' has referred me to VirtualFem. Thanks for referral, Capn, it indeed was quite an interesting experience, though a good idea behind this site has IMHO suffered a LOT because of poor implementation.
VirtualFem is not really just a usual adult site with video clips to be downloaded and played in Media Player, but they require their own download, more like sites like 3DSexGames or PlaySexGame. When downloading for the first time, you get version 2.0 and only one girl, and it was a HUGE disappointment for me. Fortunately, after an upgrade to v3.0 (upgrade is available right near original download - guys, why don't you make SINGLE download for v3.0 to avoid disappointment?) and also downloading one of newer girls things became more interesting.
What you get at that point is a girl, which you
can chat with. It is not a 3D girl, but a series of pre-shot video clips, which are affected by your chat. Earlier girls are very straightforward (which was boring for me - what is the fun if you can tell the girl "fuck ass" right away and she gets fucked up the ass?). Newer girls are more sophisticated, and sometimes are even interesting to deal with. Still, quality of conversation is IMHO poor (I remember chat bots capable of MUCH more intelligent conversation). Another problem is video quality - come on, today is 2010, and 320x240 qualifies as "barely acceptable" even in my books (and this 320x240 is represented by 2MBit/s MPEG - not MP4 or WMV - stream, so downloads are HUGE despite poor quality).
Overall, the feeling of the site was quite mixed: idea of using AI-driven girls is good, but IMHO poor AI logic and poor videos hurt this site a lot. On the plus side, I need to mention that the site is updated on regular basis (new girls are added) and that logic is improved over time too (difference between older girls and newer girls is VERY big).
Bottom line: while there is a chance of this site to become one of those I would like to visit on regular basis, right now I can recommend it only to those who likes this idea (controlling real girl via chat) that much that he can ignore all the drawbacks. IMHO rating of 68 ("Needs Work", but close to "Average") is quite descriptive for the current state of the site.
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.
:-). No, personally I don't like big black dicks (or any dicks whatsoever), but seeing them within the hot girls - that's completely different story :-).
I see; everybody has his own fetishes :-), and I was trying to highlight who is this site was made for; personally I'm not that big fan of dicks but should admit big black dicks and group sex add variety, and variety is the king for me personally.
What's the big deal if dicks are really big and black (well, they're not that big as one on FreaksOfCock, but still not an average dick, and not even an average porn dick)?
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.
