Buckle up!
I want to examine how what we're getting from the channels atm is being devalued by the trends the new 66 site can't help but emphasise. There's a specific direction of travel to the industry as a whole in its priorities. And as such I think it's important to look at the REAL areas of change and renewed focus it presents to us in detail. IMO, these form truly central deteriments to the traditional babeshow punter's experience; even though they may not be immediately obvious to the casual user. All of the points below seem to me to be encouraged by, or arising from, an attitude that insists some sort of multi-layered system of payment tiers is the only way to go. So...
1. Problematic propensity for babe judgement of users
There are clear signs that we've now moved beyond users being judged on their simple spending history alone (that itself always seems to be regarded as very specific to the babe you're viewing btw; she'll not likely be prone to taking your spending on other babes into account). Now it's more our level of ongoing commitment to the revised business model of the last 3 years or so that's questioned. (The 66 revamp doubles down in a heavily dominant focus on its intricate paywalls. For the vast majority of babes there and at BS, the simple restriction of punter access now equates to how they want their shows to function. This is the exact opposite of how it was for the first 15+years on the shows.) A series of unacknowledged criteria for assessing each punter's finances and acquiescence have become baked over this period...
'Entrance Exam for Possible Accession to Babeshow Heaven 2022' Wrote:• Are you a vip?
• Are you an auto top up?
• Do you have the minimum level of credits required right now? [Entirely arbitrary balance figures continue to be given the weirdest significance at 66 in particular.]
• Do you call/tip alongside your stream ppm's?
66 now looking to add:
• Are you subbed to x's profile page?
• Are you on x's favourites' list? [Note how the recent PR openly admits that these lists will facilitate babes treating their fav's differently from the rest.]
• Are you too frequenting of the "free" stream versus paid?*
Insidiously, the user processing/filtering of such analysis can allow the babe to pidgeon hole a punter summarily, rank him adversely against his peers and, at its worst, deny him a certain focus or level of interaction if he's not sufficiently complying.
In the past (for the most part) the paying userbase was
all equal pre-engagement and would be granted content (visuals/attention) on the simple, easiest to understand, ability to pay
in the moment. Now we are increasingly assessed for our ongoing
worthiness to the babe's cause as a whole.** This emphasis extends not only to our profile settings and use of paid streams but also to how 'open book' we are on chat (sometimes even to our third party site interactions with the babe in question). Particularly marked, in my experience, is the change in babe attitude that comes when a punter allows immediate automated access to future top ups. (Put together, all this feels akin to a casino demanding your wallet be laid out on the gaming table - in order to judge its thickness - before granting croupier services; and then them wanting you to leave it open as well - so they help themselves in return for throwing you more chips the moment
they judge you as running low!) Iow, a guy's history with/commitment to a babe(s) has become a tediously important factor in maximising the experience he's likely to be granted. (For some babes the level of fealty required to be shown feels more that of a RL relationship not one in a transactional service industry!
)
Results: All like payments are no longer granted the same weight. We encounter hidden, hard to discern, classes of service at best.
2. Obfuscatation of once standard user expectations
Basically the increase in paywalls continues the process of allowing more babes to get away with doing less (for more money - see #4). For example: The more paywalls we get, the less we seem to be encouraged to the idea we should be crediting the babes based on her presentation of a varied and active skill set (including her visual performance, ability to express her sensuality, her form and mood in the moment). Once some payment has to be made to even
witness any evidence of these things in action this seems inevitable to me.
The implication drifts instead to payment being required just to be in a babe's presence; and the subversive trend that little more is required of her (without further payment) grows. Active visuals become more a specifically targeted stop start affair with little drive put forth into holding a decent sized audience or building on what has gone before in the shift. The babe's attention to
the individual becomes the new central/only pay point, with her exclusive attention the natural end point. Of course, "attention" every babe possesses - it's an easily sourced commodity; traditional babeshow skills not so much.
Formerly a babe either did or didn't perform. An assessment of her qualities therein, and thus the punter's vfm in prospect, was simplicity itself to all. All was seen and above board in advance - every shift. Nowadays this ability has been quite deliberately and frustratingly obscured. The punter is most often manipulated via FOMO and denial (an old tactic of lesser babes) in place of said assessment.
Results: A continued drift from the old definition of what a babeshow is and what a babe should be about onscreen. Implications accrue for what it is we're paying for. A watering down of general creator talent in the roster.
3. Lack of transparency, comparability, accountability
Secondary to the above, a regrettable constant deniability is enhanced in the poor or deceptive babe. For instance, she can always say what amounts to 'no that content's for next level only' etc... And of course there's so few guys willing to spend absolute top dollar to find out if she DOES eventually follow through or not; and even less who, having done so, are willing to spill the beans on her for blatant prevarication (feeling foolishly invested and with torn loyalties a lot of the time) that much can be 'gotten away with'. (Cf. Tip Goals switched out with half targets simply pocketed or fulfilments 'forgotten' about after being hit. These are all examples of a lack of integrity, a contempt for punters and for the the shows themselves. Such things drag the reputation of channel output in the mud.) Often time/money is spent just listening to much side stepping of this sort and finding out what gives with each babe on each shift. Meanwhile, guys that DO go through all the hoops with a babe are somehow made to feel special just by emerging from this otherwise pointless interrogation of their worthiness. By the time they get to 'the goodies' they are often in deep, weedled from the crowd, isolated, and flattered to be overly foregiving; they also have little to gauge what they
should be getting for their money against. Put simply, guys are manipulated to the deepest of affections (with an eye to their deepest of pockets) and their ability to judge effectively is limited to the max.
More pervasively thesedays, no punter can be 100% about what each level of access should actually grant him (and even whether each guy gets the SAME service
with the same babe at each payment level!) The whole agenda of what individual babes will and won't do and for how much - already made messy and opaque for the average punter with the advent of multiple paywalls - is, in the "advanced" babeland of 66's vision, made worse still. Welcoming this is not!
Result: As with #2, it's made ever harder to assess/critique what we see and hear. This forum is of less utility to the punter than once was the case, as a direct consequence of this modern era babe-ing. (Helped by babe-inspired cleansing of much pictorial evidence note.)
4. Inflationary
As hinted above, the style of show favoured by many babes these days - backed by the likes of 66's innovations - is a fundamentally inflationary one. For one: Users making two payments at once is becoming more the norm. For another: The more 'lower payment levels' are put in place, the more a babe can demand prior to doing anything beyond standard TV content visuals; a neat obfuscation of inflationary pricing iow. (Cf. It's not enough that callers pay for topless on nights anymore, we have to have tip goals for it
at the same time. Here's a clue guys: One lot of those monies is bound to be largely redundant!)
Result: VFM is through the wringer
Numbers 1 thru 3 above are particularly destructive to those of us that proritise the straight up entertainment values of the shows as a whole. It is their heady intertwine that actually takes us ever further from the open spectacle that was the traditional babeshow format. In fact the elements represent a deep change of focus away from that mass market approach we had until just a few years back. More importantly,
they're the practices of a lesser, more shady, service.... So, I ask again: Can we have our shows back please? They had a wonderful simplicity and unique sympathetic appeal out of the box; they reached their evocativeness from a babe's sheer command of the mass male gaze. The current stuff has so little of any of that.
* Time in "free" is now delinated precisely in each users' transaction history (an excellently expanded utility tbf). Unfortunately this sets up a potential for a competition of numbers with the duration as listed in the paid cam section for each session. Instead of cherishing all stream use as a positive interaction in and of itself (all spending is formulated on the default feed; everyone should give credence to the 'added value' to spending it represents at the very least) we all know multiple babes who've expressed dissatisfaction with guys just watching in the past. Thus, on at least one occasion, this has now consolidated to a babe uttering the monumentally stupid phrase "you spend too much time in free"... Would this sort rather subbed up actively paying users were camped out on Netflix instead?!!! It's on the babe if she can't engage such users to proper attention and paid use. No one else is at fault.
** Provided he applies the basic courtesies, the punter shouldn't be the one having to prove himself for any straightforward interaction. In fact, it's funny how much this represents an arse about face given that it seems to have come hand in hand with many a babes' refusal to do any engaging and/or teasing performance in order to bring about guys' payments. Indeed this 'no you first' payment thing seems the have arisen out of the babes' ability to vet punters via their laptops. That's babes refuting any assessment of their worthiness in advance of payment despite being the ones put forth as providers of fantasy entertainment... So, we end up asking Who is here to serve who exactly?! And Which party is acting the more entitled in their expectations of the other?! Several of the 'advances' of 66's new site only emphasise this conflict. And it feels an assured move in the wrong direction to embolden such combativeness as a regular part the user experience.