- Edited
netcat The viewers having spent money on lifetime and annual subscriptions have taken it on the assumption that this will be a VR only site. Same was the assumption by SLR partners when they publish VR scenes.
Now we have the entrance of established 2D competitors that surely gives users the choice. As a viewer I have limited time for porn. There are limited eyeballs watching this. Yes sure, as a hardcore VR fan I might stick to VR only. But most would look at the other 2D option as well given the choice. The watchtime I spend has been divided between new 2D competitors and VR. I'm making the assumption that SLR pays partner channels based on watchtime based algos. If part of the money I spent is going for 2D, then it is money that VR studios have lost out on. Mind you, VR studios are spending way more on production costs like expensive cameras and repairs, expensive equipment, longer shoot hours, educating the talent on positions and what not, expensive editing rigs, complex post processing, issues with maturity of VR cameras, focus issues, paying larger shooting teams etc. Add to this the major learning curve of mastering this art.
None of which are major concerns for 2D. They also have the numbers in their favour whenever someone enables that Immersivr Flat toggle. VR will get buried as KinkyGirlsBerlin has pointed rightly so.
Are VR studios compensated differently from 2D for these financial challenges they face all the time?
At this critical stage, when you see studios complain of making ends meet, try out approaches like remasters of same scenes, have longer release schedules etc and now we throw regular 2D at them, It makes me question the direction this is headed.
There's no way for me to know if SLR considers these challenges for partner channels when making the payouts ever since 2D was added. I hope they do. I really do.
If not, the quality of VR is to drop further if studios are struggling. Some might just stop.
Don't you see the issue here?