There's one word that best describes WatchCams, and that's "tiny." Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of effort was put into making this an attractive, well-functioning site; it's got a clean, nicely-balanced look that we rather like, and all it takes is a quick glance to understand the layout and navigation. There are a helluva lot of sites we can't say that about. (Are you listening, AmsterdamliveXXX? How about you, CameraWare?) Sadly, though, the roster at WatchCams leaves a lot to be desired. We thought that last week's site, SexOnCams, was rather limited, but its roster is about twice the size of WatchCams' -- and that's not saying much. Here, take a look.
See how nice it looks? See those eight girls in the thumbnails? Believe it or not, that's more than half their roster. Yep. In other words, the total number of girls at this site is 15. Fifteen! That's barely into two digits. That's smaller than 247Live and 2Lips, which are small indeed. On the other hand, within that handful of girls there seems to be some genuine variety. They're from all over the world -- we noted British girls, Asians, and Americans -- and ethnically, they're just as diverse: there are several black and Asian lovelies in the mix. Even the white girls, who as usual were in the majority, showed a good bit of diversity. They even have a redhead in there.
This does not, however, mitigate the fact that there are just too few girls. It's hard to see how this site remains a going concern, since with a roster of this size it's rare to catch a girl online (we never did). In fact, few of the girls had any kind of schedule posted. We suspect either that this site is very new (though we've known about it since May), or it's dying. It's hard to say which. They do have a blog on the site, with the only entry stating, "We are going into final beta testing for WatchCams." It's dated 4/11/2007. Now, we're in the USA, so we read that as April 11, 2007. Our friends elsewhere in the English-speaking world might call it 4 November 2007, which isn't that long ago. However, I did some checking and it seems that WatchCams is based in Tampa, Florida, so apparently they've been beta testing since April 2007. At this writing, it's almost Christmas 2007. This is Not a Good Sign. Oh my, no.
One positive aspect in the favor of WatchCams (at least in our books) is the fact that it the girls do seem to be home-based, if their thumbnails are any indicator. All the shots showed them posed in non-studio backgrounds, sometimes outside. Sure, it's hard to tell for certain when you can't even catch a girl online to chat with, but we'd say that this is definitely a homegirl-dominated site. If only it were bigger!
Whether they're ramping up or dying back, one thing that WatchCams will be happy to do is accept your money. They'll take a variety of payment methods from both the U.S. and abroad, including most major credit cards: Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, Discover, Diner's Club, JCB, etc. etc. Currencies accepted are similarly various, including dollars (U.S., Canadian, and Aussie), Euros, Japanese yen, and British pounds. You can charge your account in intervals of $25, $40, $60, $80, and $100. They make it really easy to sign up, too: all you do is give them your username, a password, and your handy-dandy adult chat email address. Simple as that, and it's free. One thing that we can't tell you is how this money gets spent, or what the individual models cost, because we flat out don't know. We never did catch anyone online. Who knows where the models are; maybe they're busy somewhere else on the web. We did note that a number of them advertised their own websites on their bio pages.
WatchCams is another one of those sites we have mixed emotions about. It would be easier to deal with if it were a piece of crap, or if it were hard to navigate or otherwise annoyed us, because then we could rip it to shreds. But it doesn't deserve that. It's apparently pretty close to 100% homegirl, which we certainly can't fault it for, and it's a good site where the navigation's easy and the still graphics, at least, are clear (obviously we didn't get to experience the chat host itself). But it's too small, and we've never found anyone there despite several different tries. Remember how at the beginning of the review we said that the word that best describes WatchCams is "tiny"? Well, here's another word that works: "disappointing." It could have been so much better, but it's failed to live up to its potential. On the other hand, we're planning to keep an eye on it and check back from time to time. Who knows? It may yet blossom.
Click here to visit WatchCams now