| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1101
|
Real Peachez
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Marcus:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
You could do a lot worse than joining her site, for sure, but don't expect much more than photos and movies, and bear in mind there's a lot of missing stuff from her back-catalogue. If you want more details on something in particular, let me know.
|
05-25-13 08:22am
|
Reply
1102
|
Real Slut Party
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from lk2fireone:
Great review. Makes me want to join this site. But if I do join, will you be sending me a donation so I can afford a new hard drive? I like to download the high quality files, even if I can't really tell the difference between high and medium quality. But 5 GB for a single video?
A regular DVD (for a commercial movie) is around 700 MB. So why are the file sizes so large? You certainly don't get any massive improvement in video or audio quality that I can see to justify the huge increase in size. Is it really just an inefficient use of file size?
So be warned: My bill (asking for donations) will be sent automatically if I do decide to join this network.
|
05-09-11 04:37am
|
Reply
1103
|
Real Spankings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Jay G:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Obsessed with the female bum...... I love even talking about it!
It is this obsession that makes me enjoy watching spanking.
Interestingly enough, in the real world I've found that spanking real women is not a big turn-on for me.... I prefer fondling, licking, touching (you get the idea).
The effort & pain of actually spanking detracts from the sexual experience with a real woman for me. On the other "hand", watching videos of spanking still turns me on as much as when I was a young man.
|
03-31-15 05:25am
|
Reply
1104
|
Real Spankings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Jay G:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Hi, Admiral,
I shouldn't make a pun about spanking sites and "rear" admirals, butt ............
I do have a spanking fetish since touching a female ass was only acceptable if it was being spanked (back in the day of glorious birthday spankings) and as far back into my childhood as I can remember I loved female ass. I was dreaming about touching it and slapping it as far back as early grade school.
Unless you enjoy female ass turning red or have a bit of an s/m streak, spanking sites might just seem strange.
If you are curious, Real Spanking is best in price, quality, and pretty girls for me. Firm Hand Spanking is also good for pretty girls. I have belonged to all the decent-looking spanking sites on the internet and would recommend it if spanking ALONE is the desire. Lupus video is filled with story-line spanking, but seems often a bit too severe for me and its stories in an Eastern European Language don't have me very interested.
For sex & spanking there is Kink.com's Whipped Ass (Lesbian) and Everything Butt (Kinky anal) and some spanking on a lot of the other Kink sites.
Though they might be listed for spanking, there are many sites only for true sadists ...... sites that are far too brutal for most, including me, (Paintoy, Paingate, Mood & Elite Videos for example).
The newer Real Spankings videos all seem to have good lighting & resolution, but I couldn't give you the tech details. My experience with numbers is poor, I just know that good lighting, camerawork, and resolution are something I expect now.
|
03-28-15 08:35pm
|
Reply
1105
|
Reality Gang
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from nygiants03:
thanks for the review. Love me some gangbang action.
|
09-24-12 03:09pm
|
Reply
1106
|
Reality Junkies
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Comment
from Tree Rodent:
Another good informative review/comment admiral. You surprised me with there being so few anal clips given who runs the site - NetFame/Fame Dollars.
|
12-09-13 02:18pm
|
Reply
1107
|
Reality Junkies
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from Cybertoad:
Nice review as Always Admiral !
|
05-01-12 12:31pm
|
Reply
1108
|
Reality Junkies
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from hodayathink:
Good review. I was already interested in joining this site at some point, but your review has convinced me to make this the next site I join (especially with the discount they offer).
|
05-01-12 09:27am
|
Reply
1109
|
Reality Junkies
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from gaypornolover:
Superb quality review as ever. I do wish sites which are part of a network would at least give a small token discount when you join more than one site - just as a thank-you for being one of their better customers!
|
04-30-12 11:48pm
|
Reply
1110
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from malikstarks:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
I still don't understand why they decided to go with a different pricing model than even Brazzers, who who owns them. You can get Brazzers for 9.99 practically anywhwere and it includes downloads. They are the only MindGeek site that prices like this that i'm aware of.
|
01-13-19 06:51am
|
Reply
1111
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Comment
from LoganSix:
I also signed up for the $9.99 Christmas deal, and no where did I see where it was streaming only. After signing up, when I clicked on the link to download, I got a pop-up asking me to sign up for the Christmas deal for $9.99 (which I obviously already did). It even says "Start downloading now".
I contacted RK and was told that I had streaming only membership.
As far as I'm concerned it was pure theft on Reality Kings part. I'll never purchased from them again.
|
01-02-19 02:33pm
|
Reply
1112
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from malikstarks:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
They used to use epoch as their biller, but since they got bought out by mindgeek (company behind Brazzers) they've used Probiller, who i've personally not had problems with (though it's been awhile) but have seen enough horror stories to know they aren't completely legit either. I was planning on going back but not now.
|
02-14-18 04:06pm
|
Reply
1113
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Gnoman:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
It's so common on several of the sites that they don't even bother including it in the video description. It's the main reason I'm not renewing my membership, as I hate ATM porn.
|
07-31-14 08:06pm
|
Reply
1114
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from oldfart:
I recently discovered, actually told by the site, that download managers may limit the amount of material, as they may use several connections for a single file, which the site recognizes as multiple files being downloaded, although you are only downloading one file.
To avoid this problem, using IDM, I just allowed a single connection for a file. From my previous experience, using 8 connections or just 1 connection did not affect the downloading speed. This avoided timeouts for me. Therefore, if your download manager gives you an option, use just one connection for your downloads and you may get the maximum allowed of material allowed.
In addition, I've found that IDM will work when browser downloading doesn't.
BTW, another great and very detailed review rearadmiral!
|
07-17-14 08:36pm
|
Reply
1115
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Dave H:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Yeah I just noticed that today. Your daily limit isn't reset at midnight, like one would naturally think, it seems to be a rolling 24 hours. So if you downloaded "too much" today, you will have to wait till later in the day tomorrow to try again. This is BS and borders on Scam-ish. I won't waste my money with these guys again. There are too many better sites with no arbitrary limits!
Take Care!
|
07-17-14 01:33pm
|
Reply
1116
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from Monahan:
Agree with the Squirrel, RA. Another great review.
My only addition is that I use Firefox as my browser and had frequent problems signing on. The unstated limits seemed to arrive even on the first or second D/L. When I had Firefox access issues I could access with IE immediately but couldn't download anything. I also don't like having to switch browsers.
RK's support provided no he;p fixing the issue so I just decided to quit trying. There are plenty of other great sites so fighting to access what I've paid for just ain't worth the frustration.
|
04-10-14 11:29pm
|
Reply
1117
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
from Tree Rodent:
Another great review admiral, and good investigation into the very cloudy download limit situation. Most if us hate download limits, but they're even worse when you're unclear what the download limit is.
|
04-10-14 08:53am
|
Reply
1118
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Comment
from Buckhead:
I am about to add a review that will go into this as well, but their HD movies (from what I saw 720 & 1080) are called "Filename_big.avi" when you download them, hence the "big" movie. My understanding of the TOS is that you can download up to 15 of those per day. I was a member for a month and downloaded over 500GB from them and never got a message that I was over my limit.
|
11-03-13 07:05pm
|
Reply
1119
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from eden:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Ant video downloader....download it (use mozilla) and then select streaming video option to record. Kinda sucks having to rename the vids but it's worth it in order to bypass download limits.
|
09-06-13 09:47am
|
Reply
1120
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from lk2fireone:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Thanks, RA (RA for rearadmiral, but also stood for Regular Army back in the day).
I'm going to give this site a pass. Too much uncertainty about the download limit problem, for me.
|
09-21-12 03:31am
|
Reply
1121
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from hodayathink:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Right now, I'm just downloading the standard definition files (coming in at about 350-500 MB), so I doubt I'm gonna run into it soon. I may go ahead and try to do it closer to the end of my subscription to see how they react, though.
|
03-28-12 06:13pm
|
Reply
1122
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#11
from BubbaGump:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
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
1123
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from BubbaGump:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Hi.
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
1124
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from BubbaGump:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
Hi.
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
1125
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from BubbaGump:
(rearadmiral's Reply)
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
|
