Does anyone know why videos seem to be missing from VRConk? On SLR, I can see 175 videos from VRConk studio, but on VRConk’s website, I can less than 70 videos.
Anyone have any idea of what is going on? Is this part of a site redesign that didn’t go well, or are videos being removed from the site?
From what I can understand, they want VRConk to be for “Cosplay / Parody” scenes only, so they removed all the old scenes that don’t fit that genre. It’s really weird to me to “sabotage” their own portfolio like that. Like @ITO_Snake said, they could at least “rebrand” those old scenes as VRBangers or something.
Yeah especially when some of their old scenes are absolute bangers - milkman’s diary - and then they have to compete with Vrcosplayx. And while the vrconk cosplay videos are alright, Vrcosplayx still has em beat on casting and the actually cosplay - in my humble opinion
Agreed. What I wish they would do is be like “ok Vrcosplayx did ino and hinata so we are gonna do a sakura” but lately it’s just like “oh you both came out with a yor forgier video…… ok.like please hire me just to give video recommendations. Like a hollow knight cosplay?... When they could be doing like an aqua or any of the girls from cyberpunk or something…. To Vrcosplayx’s credit though. They usually act on trends like bowsette and they’ve hit Disney princesses and Most of the BIG anime. So I can’t dog em too bad. …. Of fuck I might have a porn addiction - stares at every single vr cosplay x script that’s been released and a couple I’ve half assed on my own….
oh man you should see the ideas i had posted long ago on VRcosplayX and they would come out with some random ones that others would question especially if the casting was definitely not even close for the character being played. When they actually picked up the suggestion i made with the Succubus Prison, i was just glad the two actresses chosen were great choices and not messed up . But it took like a year or 2 from when i had posted about that suggestion. I can see the same for other ones but as for comparison with VRconk, i did not have them on my subscriptions back in the day so no clue how often they would put out great cosplay choices and actresses that fit the design . Best they should do is literally give a poll. It would make things sooooo much easier for which actress to go with which character and then just base the schedule around their availability…but yea end of my rant lol
Lol that’s the great thing about the internet, stuff doesn’t die to easy, so your reply timeline is fine. But yeah a poll would be nice. Also side note - god I hope they see this - PLEASE stop greenscreening porn back drops. It looks terrible when you actually put on the vr goggles and it looks cheap. Ruins the immersion for me
I made an account just to reply to this post (congratulations, I guess ^^)
I find that the overall quality of videos on VRCosplayX is sub-par, and clearly doesn’t reach the level of VRConk.
VRCosplayX has a tendency of making lazy cosplays and casting ugly actresses.
VRConk is always above.
Of course, VRCosplayX has some good stuff. But just compare the VRConk Jessica Rabbit with the VRCosplayX Jessica Rabbit and her obvious wig : that’s a no-match for VRConk.
Lately, VRCosplayX tried CGI backgrounds with Bayonetta 3 and Sailor Moon Eternal. It is horrendous. Bayonetta 3’s background looks like a PS2 render, and Sailor Moon’s ponytails have a weird pink shade.
To finish I’d say that, while VRCosplayX started before VRConk, VRCosplayX’s earliest videos are very amateurish and show ugly women : Marta lacroft as Bayonetta, or that girl thattried to cosplay beautiful Elisabeth from Bioshock.
On the other hand, i’ve NEVER been let down by a VRConk video. They are constant in quality.
It looks like the ultimate answer to the question I posted is the VRConk was restructuring how it presented videos. Some videos that were on VRConk were moved to VRBangers. Content on VRBangers and VRConk which focused on oral sex seem to have been moved to the new BlowVR subscription.
Another frequent reason why content is removed from streaming platforms is the presence of alcohol and/or drugs in the scene. As I understand it, the companies which handle the financial transactions for the streaming services have mandated that scenes with that type of content be removed. As an example, Bella Rolland did a scene with SLR Originals called “CanvASS Sexhibition” which is set in an art gallery (or maybe at an art auction). Because wine/champagne is used as a prop during the storytelling beginning of the scene, that scene was removed from SLR. Sometimes those scenes can be re-edited to remove the alcohol/drugs and can then be re-released.
But you can buy a movie where someone gets drunk or get high and goes on a killing spree though. The double standards of American based credit card companies are stunning. What’s the origin of these restrictions that Visa and MC have set?
My understanding is that in the 1970s, organized crime used the adult film industry to launder money. This caused the US federal government to scrutinize financial transactions related to pornography. This increased scrutiny caused financial institutions (banks, credit unions, etc.) to avoid financial transactions related to adult content. And that trend continues to this day. So, in a nutshell (no pun intended), financial entities (like Visa, MC, Paypal, Venmo, Cashapp, etc.) want to avoid adult content related transactions because they invite undue scrutiny by the US federal government.
I suspect the anti-alcohol and anti-drug policies on adult content are about consent. There was some discussion a while back about scenes that involved waking up someone with sex would be removed from streaming. This was purportedly due to the character in the scene who is sleeping cannot consent to the sexual contact. I have assumed that the alcohol and drug restrictions are also associated with consent. Since you cannot tell whether a character is impaired by alcohol/drugs in the scene, making a policy of zero alcohol and zero drugs creates an easy metric.
I’m not saying it’s a logical or even a reasonable requirement. Regardless, it is my best guess at what is going on based on the limited information I have.
If they want to avoid organized crime and money laundry then they shouldn’t allow paying for buying used mobile phones, doing any kind of internet transactions etc. Sounds like a law that isn’t relevant today IMHO. It’s comparable to the EU law related to tax on hard drives, flash drives, writable DVD/BD (and all devices with such in them) to compensate copyright holders due to “private copying”. Who record music from the radio or record TV on video tapes and so on in a world of streaming? sigh
I will stop discussing this off topic now. Sorry for the rant
my all time favorite is the Succubus Prison parody