Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
Flexy Teens
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
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"
|
02-08-18 06:14pm
|
Reply
77
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
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.
|
02-02-18 06:02pm
|
Reply
78
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
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.
|
02-02-18 05:54pm
|
Reply
79
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
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.
|
01-29-18 09:48am
|
Reply
80
|
N/A
|
Reply of
merc77's Poll
This is really more of an age question isn't it?
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.
|
01-26-18 08:23am
|
Reply
81
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
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. :-)
https://www.quora.com/A-recent-survey-fo...emocrats-Why-is-this
|
01-23-18 09:23am
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
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.
|
01-23-18 09:14am
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Poll
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.
|
01-23-18 08:59am
|
Reply
84
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
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.
|
01-17-18 06:29pm
|
Reply
85
|
Interactive GF
(0)
|
Reply of
Amanda's Reply
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....
Take care!
|
01-17-18 06:00pm
|
Reply
86
|
Holly Randall
(0)
|
Reply of
Amanda's Reply
Thanks Amanda, I'll take a look and probably join and write a review soon.
|
01-16-18 01:10pm
|
Reply
87
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
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.
|
01-16-18 01:04pm
|
Reply
88
|
Czech VR
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
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)
|
01-09-18 08:50pm
|
Reply
89
|
N/A
|
Reply of
skippy's Poll
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"
|
01-09-18 08:38pm
|
Reply
90
|
Czech VR
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
Hi,
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...... :-)
|
01-09-18 07:35pm
|
Reply
91
|
Czech VR
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Review
Hi Onyx,
Well done review, thanks. It is interesting how different our perspectives are on this site as for me it is one of the lowest scorers among the 20+ VR sites I've joined so far. I totally agree that the video quality was good (it should be good) but I just didn't think the models/pornstars were attractive and the few popular ones had oddly done make-up. (I'm from the US, so eastern European make-up, especially bright colored eye shadow, is hard to watch for me.) Perhaps it has improved since I reviewed it or perhaps a little time will change my perspective, so I'll go back and watch some of the 48 VR vids that I kept from this site. Thanks!
|
01-08-18 07:28am
|
Reply
92
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Even when I'm scanning and only downloading the things that I want, I have hit limits on a few sites, mainly In The Crack. I also think that sites that sign you up as streaming only without telling you are pretty much committing fraud. That includes Playboy Plus, Twisty's and a bunch of other sites managed by the same sleazeball company. Fraud. The expectation is that you will be allowed to download anything you "see" unless specifically told otherwise. Limits are one thing. Bait and switch is fraud.
|
01-07-18 06:58pm
|
Reply
93
|
Mr. Skin
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
I went ahead and took this lifetime offer at Mr. Skin. It does include naked news and Playboy Plus, but the PP subscription is streaming only with no downloads. When I tried to pay the $10 for downloads, the PP system says I am not a valid user and won't allow me to upgrade. Kinda sucks, but I'm used to it from the douche bags that run the Playboy site and many others that don't allow downloading unless you pay the extortion fee.
|
01-01-18 07:44pm
|
Reply
94
|
VR Hush
(0)
|
Reply of
Onyx's Reply
That is a really good point, especially since POV used to commonly be used to describe a look-down blow-job video (a lot of sites still call BJ videos POV).
I agree that for those who haven't seen it, the term POV or non-POV might be confusing, but with the advent of POV sites (like POVD.COM), the term is a little more universal than it used to be. In video games, they use the terms FPS and RTS all the time, but unless you are referring to a dick, "shooter" isn't really appropriate here. First person/third person might work, but it isn't used anywhere in VR that I know of. I originally used "participatory" and "observational" to describe the videos, which might make more sense. Iv'e also seen "Voyuer POV" and "Male POV" or "female POV", but again, without a frame of reference, these can still be confusing. In the end, the industry itself needs to decide what terms to use, but I'll try to be as descriptive as possible going forward.
|
01-01-18 07:39am
|
Reply
95
|
N/A
|
Reply of
badandy400's Poll
If the choice were porn or regular/cable TV, the only thing I would actually miss would be the news. But there are a few good movies.......
|
01-01-18 07:37am
|
Reply
96
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Amanda's Poll
POV and, of course, Virtual Reality didn't exist a few years ago. Those two things have transformed porn into a much more personal experiance for the viewer. The sheer volume of porn today means that there are also genres for every taste from traditional to literally whatever you are into.
On the other hand, I agree with Drooler about the extremity of sex today. (I admit I had to look up Gonzo and apparently not all dictionaries agree on what it is...). Some things, like anal sex, have become way too common on mainstream sites. I agree that the white background thing is annoying, but it seems to be passing. Tattoos? It is a generational (and partially socio-econimc) thing that, unfortunately, will always be more acceptable for younger generations than for older ones. But the tattoo industry has grown tremendously in the past two decades and probably won't go away any time soon.
...I digress. Quality, quantity and variety today are generally better than ever.
|
01-01-18 07:14am
|
Reply
97
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I have a routine that includes checking sites for updates and it seems that I do this pretty consistently. The weather (or season) probably has the biggest impact on surfing frequency. Nice weather means I'm off doing something else. Cold outside? More surfing.
|
12-26-17 08:43am
|
Reply
98
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Jack Incognito's Comment
You should take a look at FTVgirls. I don't think there is an exact match to ITC anywhere, but FTVgirls is a similar video style with a little more outdoor stuff and some really good looking unknown models providing some serious close ups. The girls at FTV are almost all American (I think they shoot in Tucson or Phoenix, maybe). ALS is OK. ALSscan is mostly thinner girls and ALSAngels is generally bigger breasted, more popular models/stars, etc. Read my reviews to get an idea or just look at the previews. ALSscan is a Met-Art network site now while ALSAngels is not. Both are run by the same webmaster and both recycle a lot of material.
|
12-22-17 08:19pm
|
Reply
99
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
inthecrack's Reply
My reference to 10GB was in regards to the size of most 20-30 minute 3D video files from the most popular 3D sites. You can go look at my reviews for pretty much all of them.
BTW, I did go ahead and purchase the unlimited plan for $70 so I could download the files I want without being treated like a thief and then cancelled it. I think there is a fundamental problem with offering access to a site and then restricting how much a subscriber can actually download from it. Your use of the term "abusers" in your response is particularly insightful, reflecting your attitude toward "subscribers" very clearly. As I mentioned, I offered to pay $100-150 for an annual subscription, but you aren't interested in that, so I'll be back in a year or two and will again buy an unlimited subscription so I can catch up.
And there is one final point I wish to make here. When I subscribe to a site, I want to be able to watch the videos whenever and wherever I am without having to wait for anything to download or having a stream stutter or having it switch to a lower resolution because of traffic. Actually possessing the file means I can play it instantly, fast forward, skip huge sections or replay the section I like over and over, all on the player of my choice and regardless of where I am or whether or not I have an internet connection. So when I sign up for a site, the first thing I do is download a handful of videos so I have them and can watch them any time once they've downloaded. Except for your site. On your site, I downloaded part of a handful of videos before I hit my quota. The downloads stop so I don't get the files, but the portion download still applies to my quota. So on your site I was unable to apply the same download-and-watch methodology that I have applied to dozens of other sites. Why? Because downloading 5 videos is abusing the system? You really need to rethink this logic.
See you next time!
|
12-19-17 05:45pm
|
Reply
100
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
tangub's Reply
Hi Tangub,
I just looked at my image collection over three years from ITC and it totals 41,770 images, which is probably about 70% of the sets available. Image sizes range from about 1000 x 1600 pixels for the older sets, to 1800x2400 or 3000 x 4500 for the most recent sets. I have videos and images in the same folders, so my computer is having a hard time figuring out how large that is, but it looks like it is about 36GB. So the 300GB level should allow you to download all of the images you want....just not within the first hour. :-)
|
12-19-17 05:25pm
|
|
