Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings (2)

BubbaGump (18) 01-11-12  06:08pm
Rookie Badge  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (28), NO (0)
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: -- Large Amount Of Content, both in quantity and variety. Enough to satisfy many interests.
-- High Quality Videos.
-- Sexy models. Model-types range from bra busters to thin and petite.
-- Good number of sub-sites with decent content(mostly)
Cons: -- Streaming and Downloading can be hit or miss.
-- No High-Resolution Photos.
-- Repetitive photos in sequences.
-- Downloading Limit of 10 G daily.
Bottom Line: A little background to put things in perspective:

My erotic interests: I am a breast guy. Curvy Women, Slim-and-Stacked or Voluptuous, Natural Women, MILF, Shapely Behinds.

I am primarily a photo guy, as well. I enjoy streaming videos but my primary taste in erotica is photography. I also travel quite frequently, so much of my viewing takes place on an Ipad, after transfer of data. Keep this in mind here.

With that being said, I have found the site to be somewhat lacking for my preferences, not in content or quality of the presentations, but in the medium available.

If you are looking for sexy models and high quality videos you will not be dissapointed. If you have a bias for high-resolution photography, you are likely to find the site lacking a bit in terms of photographic standards. However, given that I do view many of the images on an Ipad at times, this hasn't been a show-stopper. When viewed on a high-resolution flatpanel monitor, the images are lacking, simply due to the smaller formats and low pixel counts.

The videos themselves are of high-quality and the camera work is fairly decent. Many of the scenes start with the model fully clothed and do not jump right into the action.

Navigating the site is very simple and straightforward. It is designed quite well and is not lacking here, IMO. Jumping from one site to the other is seamless. Getting to the downloads is also seamless and straightforward. Everything is a click away.

As far as DL and Streaming speeds, this is where I give the lowest marks. At times, it was difficult to even stream videos at standard quanity. Most of the time, I was getting nowhere near the claimed DL speed and bit-ratre transfer when I did attempt to download videos at standard resolutions. The times I did try a HD download, I would often timeout and have to restart. On weekends, the problem was particularly noticeable. Slow connections are quite understandable at this time of the week. However, the server seemed to slow to a crawl and would often become asburdly slow.

To sum up, if variety, quality content, and video presentations are your primary interests, it's a safe bet that you probably will not be dissapointed. If transfer rates and streaming connectivity are of paramount importance, I would take this into consideration.

Cancelation: Just a note on this as I know this is one of my concerns when I sign up over the net. When I read reviews, I sometimes hear of extra charges taking place after an order has been canceled. I experienced no issues and giving notice of intent to cancel was no issue and took place as requested.


Grades: (obviously subjective calls, so take that into consideration as well.)

Presentation and Site Navigation: A
Overall Quality of Content: B+
Subject Matter Variety: A +
Content Variety for Varied Interests: A
Standard Video Quality: B
HD Video Quality: A
Scene Content and Videography: B+
Photo Gallery Compositions and Content: C+
Photo Resolution and Image Quality: C-
The Models Themselves: A
The Action: B
DL Speed and Streaming: D-


My favorite sub-sites within the URL--relative to my interests and not quality:

Dangerous Cuvres, Big Naturals.

Least Favorite: Pure 18 and Cum Fiesta. (Models too thin and young-looking for my tastes)


Other things to note: There is a download limit of 10 GIG daily. This was of no concern to me as I stream videos mostly and did not download much in the way of videos. If you are a massive user of downloadable HD video content, this very well might be soemething to consider. If you aren't downloading HD more than twice a day, it shouldn't be a problem. In fairness to these guys, you would have to be downloading a lot of content every day to hit the max.


Suggestions for improvement:

-- Address concerns with streaming connectvity and download speeds. Slower speeds are to be expected on weekends but not weekdays.

-- Add high-resolution image galleries. The days of CRT monitors have long since passed. 800 pixel-width images images no longer cut it in the day of 2800x1900 high-resolution monitors.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (15)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date


rearadmiral (388) Really interesting, informative and well written review! I like the level of detail and I expecially like your thorough descriptions and how your own tastes impact on how you view the site. That's an important element because it allows a reader to make decisions on how their own tastes will be served by the site. I also liked your letter grades for various aspects. That works well within the context of a full review like this.

I was a RK member here recently and HATED the daily download limit. That tainted everything else about the site for me, and I wasnít that big a fan of the site to begin with. What I find interesting is that the limit doesnít apply to streaming. Is it possible that you just didnít hit the 10GB cut-off? Iíll admit though that the contract speaks to a cap on downloads, not data transfer. If they cap downloads by allow data to stream unfettered, this seems odd and may point to another purpose for the limit. Any thoughts?

01-12-12  04:09am

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #1 - rearadmiral :

Hi. Thanks.

I like to know contexts when I read reviews, whether for cars or movies. It's often hard to tell where people are coming from. Everyone has preferences and varied experiences and this can slew opinions.

As far as the reason for having a limit on dl but not streams, I can only surmise that perhaps this is a means of preventing individuals or networks from easily pirating content? Since bandwidth charges are the same for both methods, this might be the case.

Then again, it could be a way to keep subscribers from bailing after a month-long frenzy of downloading all videos for future use. This would also be a valid explanation.

The last possibility would be related to technical specs. Perhaps there is some odd technical reason. I would not be inclined to think this is the case.

My guess is its a combination of the first 2 above. This would be something I couldn't fault a business for implementing. You want to keep a customer base around and piracy is a big issue for any online media outlet. However, you also have to take into account the competition. Apparently, the owners do not see such a limit as stifling sales or they wouldn't make such a move.

01-12-12  06:11am

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #1 - rearadmiral :

Another possibility is connectivity. Users downloading hd content all day can slow down the server for other members.

This is a business that I assume caters to the avg user. Volume is key to profits. I am sure such a business does research using industry data and historical data gleaned from past user behavior when it comes to download figures. The number is likely set based on the needs and behavior of the avg subscriber to such a site. You don't want power users because they are a drain. You want the power users to leave so setting a cap serves a purpose in this regards as well. You make your profits off the avg consumer. Limits likely are set accordingly.

I am not minimizing your frustration but this is probably just what a consultant felt represented the most prudent decision based on profit margins vs retention.

Then again, everything I just offered could be complete bs.

01-12-12  07:39am

Reply To Message


Cybertoad (Disabled) Nice well , done review. I found out things I did not know about the site. Great Job.
01-12-12  10:23am

Reply To Message


rearadmiral (388) REPLY TO #3 - BubbaGump :

Interesting thought, and it makes sense with so many people using streaming these days.

I have no technical knowledge at all, but how would streaming and downloading be different from a server's perspective? I didn't download any HD material because of the cap and I don't recall if HD was offered by streaming, but if I download a 2GB scene and you stream it, wouldn't that be the same to the server? But... now that I think of it, I could be comparing apples and oranges here too. I recall that a WMV HD scene is less compressed than an mp4, so streaming may even use a higher compression, thereby making your streaming less of a data hog than my downloading.

Still... it seems odd that I'd be cut off after accessing 10GB of data and other users wouldn't.

01-12-12  02:00pm

Reply To Message


rearadmiral (388) REPLY TO #2 - BubbaGump :

I should have read this response before asking you questions based on your other response! I'd say you answered my questions here.

I agree that piracy is probably a big concern, but limits still bug me!

01-12-12  02:02pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #4 - Cybertoad :

Hello. Thanks. I tried to be fair and objective about it. never reviewed a porn site before.
01-12-12  03:43pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #5 - rearadmiral :


If you are a high-volume user then download limits are certainly something negative.

As far as streaming and downloads, they are two different animals. Both, done in high volumes, can slow down connectivity and they both take the same bandwidth in most cases. However, one takes an active time commitment, the other does not.

I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find users who stream entire videos from start to finish in front of their computer, and do so 3-4 times a day. Most people probably only stream certain sections they find interesting and the bandwidth used is probably quite small. Streaming videos real-time requires a large time commitment.

With downloads, you can simply set a number of them going and move on and retrieve them later. No time commitment is involved and you don't sit there watching the download. Most people are probably going to download and watch later. The sites all have to know this and understand it is downloads that consume most of the bandwidth. Streaming probably accounts for a small fraction of useage.

Unlimited downloads are kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Most people probably won't make more than 1-2 passes to the buffet table in a single sitting before they have had their fill. There will always be people who keep going back, however, and I suspect that most site owners don't really care if such consumers move on to other pastures. It is profitable to retain the ones who only make 2 passes.

01-12-12  03:57pm

Reply To Message


rearadmiral (388) REPLY TO #8 - BubbaGump :

Thanks for the excellent information. Your technical knowledge surpasses mine exponentially. I realize that some people might find this level of information boring, but I'm not one of those.

I hadn't thought of the issue you note with streaming versus downloading, namely that a person streaming the video is unlikely to watch the whole thing, where the person downloading takes the whole file. To add to your argument, even though I download, it's rare for me to watch the scene from start to finish. But where downloading is superior is in being able to access the file at any time without having to have an internet connection or still be a member of the site.

I'm one of the members who keeps coming back to the buffet and who likely looks like a glutton, but I only join sites where I know I'm going to enjoy the material so it just makes sense that if I've put a lot of effort into finding a site I know I'll like that I download a lot. I may seem indiscriminate to the webmaster, but the webmaster can't know the effort I put in to finding that specific site.

I am glad to hear that if there are people like me who use a lot of bandwidth that there are more who don't and the site continues to make money. I'm a porn fan and an active porn buyer and I realize that unless sites make money they won't make more porn.

What do you think of tiered pricing? What if RK offered a $20 membership for streaming and up to 10GB a day and $30 for up to 50GB per day? Would that work? I'm certainly willing to pay for what I get.

01-13-12  10:01am

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #9 - rearadmiral :


I am not really sure how each site manages their sales. I assume they have hired consultants that analyzed the bandwidth requirements and how this effects the profits.

You are what is termed a power-user. This is neither good nor bad. But I assume that sites prefer not to retain such customers, even though they wouldn't ever publically say so. More DL traffic means you have to purchase more servers or people will complain about slow connectivity etc..

I don't really think anyone would offer this upgrade stratification as the extra charge probably wouldn't justify any possible increase in revenue for offering this.

To me, a site that has DL limits is basically saying they do no want power users who are going to be downloading a lot of content in a short amount of time. Very few sites do this but I think more would like to. They probably don't want to drive away people who think they might be limited, even though they may never really reach daily limits. For sites with DL limits, power-users are certainly welcome to apply, but your requirements are not going to not be met.

Again, everything i offered could be complete BS. That's just my take.

01-15-12  04:57pm

Reply To Message


rearadmiral (388) REPLY TO #10 - BubbaGump :

What you're saying doesn't sound like BS at all - it sounds perfectly sensible.

I guess I didn't ever think of most other active buyers as being that much different from me in that they'd find a site that they liked and then download a lot of the content because they actually like it. That describes my relationship with many Kink.com sites. I join frequently and download all the new material because that site offers what I like. The opposite might be a site that specializes in big breasts. If I were tempted to join a site it would likely just be for one or two scenes that I liked and then I'd leave. But I guess I just assumed that most users will actually download a lot. But if that isn't the case, I can understand why I'd be seen as a power user and a less desirable customer. I do realize from some comments made on this site that many of the members are much more selective than me.

It must be a bit of a Catch-22 for sites: they create a niche site and they do it well and then they'd have to hope that people who like that niche won't like everything on the site.

Thanks for the information. This is really interesting.

01-17-12  01:08pm

Reply To Message


BubbaGump (18) REPLY TO #11 - rearadmiral :

Hi. I think people probably download a lot but not a lot on average, by day. I don't know how the sites manage their bandwidth or what the user stats are like. I would just assume the average user probably doesn't download a large quantity after the first few days of excitement with the new site. The average user probably wouldn't go past 10 GIG a day after that, I suspect.

It's not that the sites don't want power users--money is money. But a limit forces the power users to accept the limit and alter their DL behavior, if they want to subscribe. It would help with detering some types of piracy, as well--I think.

01-17-12  03:35pm

Reply To Message


rearadmiral (388) REPLY TO #12 - BubbaGump :

All good points again. I certainly fit the description of a power users for the first few days of a membership. I'll scour the site for material that interests me, and I'll download that. I won't download something simply because it happens to be on the site. There has to be a reasonable expectation that I'll like what I download. There are several dozen models that I like and if a site has stuff with them I'll download it without question. If I can sort by theme, anal sex, for example, then I'lld o that, but I won't download a scene merely because it has anal sex. If the anal sex scene features a MILF with Double-Ds, then I won't DL that because that type of model doesn't do it for me. So after a few days of downloading madly I'll settle down and be a lot more selective. That's when I start looking at models I don't know in hopes of finding someone who tickle my fancy.

I can see how a DL limit might limit piracy. If a pirate has to take days or months to rip a site, they'll probably avoiding it.

01-21-12  05:46am

Reply To Message


Micha (1) Excellent revue Bubba

For the first 2 months, I experienced no download limit at all.
Around the middle of December, I began getting shut off daily, without an increase in my downloading habits. I read that the limit was 10G. That is not true for me. I began keeping all downloads in a single folder until I was cut off. I recorded the size of the file and then
filed its contents. I was able to DL 9G on two occasions. The rest of the cutoffs happened at between 3 and 7G. Dead links to the WMV files are plentiful. Several times I got 3 or 4 dead WMV links in a row and was then was shut out. The failed downloads were being counted in the DL limit. Daily, there are 2 to 4 download that appear to complete, but when I attempt to view them the file size says otherwise.
The failed downloads are between 1 and 100MB instead of the 300 to 700MB I was expecting. The folks in tech support are asleep at the wheel. In the first 2 months, I made between two and three hundred bug reports.
I never received a single response and no corrections were ever made. I stopped wasting my time. Each scene has a comments section. Whenever I commented about a dead link or a missing file, my comment was removed within hours. Someone there is on top of that job.
For me, downloading is the only viable use of Reality Kings. Streaming videos are impossible there. Buffering takes 5 to 10 times longer than the video it provides. Images sometimes take 5 to 10 seconds to load just the thumbnail of the image.
Itís easier to download the zip file and then delete what is not wanted.
(zip files do not appear to count against the download limit. Nor do clips) I would much prefer to download HD vids but that would set the limit to 2 or 3 videos a day. The only HD in the network is 1080p which is a huge memory hog, from 3 to 5G per video. 720p files at 1G per video would make a lot more sense to me. Most other sites offer both.

I've canceled my membership and will not return unless I read reports of an improvement.

Yes, RK has some very good content, but the navigation issues, the apathetic tech support, and the download limit queer the deal.

I recommend Reality Kings to no one.

03-25-12  04:24am

Reply To Message


Micha (1) Some decent content
Donít go there
Slow download speed
Donít go there
Three to nine G daily download limit
Donít go there
Hundreds of dead links
Donít go there
Tech support is non existent or totally non responsive
Phone numbers donít work
Donít go there
Cancelation doesn't appear to work
Donít go there

04-08-12  03:25pm

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

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.


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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.02 seconds.