Pay to progress
2 independent sources agreePay to progress: raised by 13 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 31 reviews we read)
Definition
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Take your battles to the skies in Age of Kings: Skyward Battle and choose fro…
ElexSerious warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 3.55.2 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.55.2, updated 2026-09-08.








Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
Take your battles to the skies in Age of Kings: Skyward Battle and choose from hundreds of unique heroes and heroines to serve you in your conquest to build your supreme empire!
Game Features
✔ Experience action-packed battles in this MMOSLG and lead your troops to victory
✔ Protect your empire and gather valuable resources with fearless and skilled heroes and heroines.
✔ Explore the world map keeping an eye on your developing resource areas, expanding empire and your enemies all in real-time!
✔ Forge alliances with other players to maximize the growth of your kingdom and rally your troops together to defeat your common enemies.
✔ Personalize your empire with various building and unit combinations and a selection of castle designs.
Note: Age of Kings is free to play but some in-game items require payment. An internet connection is also required to play.…
From the developer’s store description.
For developers and the curious
The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Pay to progress: raised by 13 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 31 reviews we read)
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
The app's own text says: "delete"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
Package artefact
sha256:005722c94d9f0c8c5ff9494170de007c1a121f60b3b5184ec5699eb0c7559af8The app's own text says: "Not you?"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
Package artefact
sha256:005722c94d9f0c8c5ff9494170de007c1a121f60b3b5184ec5699eb0c7559af8400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
**Bullet ** 2019. Been playing for almost 5 years. Spent a lot of money just to be able to compete with others. Don't get trapped. Endless money pit. The gap between the powerful and the casual player is HUGE! The more new stuff they…
The game become almost 100 % "pay to win". There are no more free events to keep the people in the game. 0 free eveniments 100 % eveniments with $$$ => they should say in the description this "only your money are good here" They already…
If i could only give minus stars for this game i would. The worst lopsided pay to win game in history. It is 8mpossible to get anywhere with people paying thouands of dollars and attacking you repeatetedly, forcingbyou to 1. start from…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.
Android package 3.55.2, scanned 27 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured
This analysis describes version 3.55.2 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-27 .
The store currently lists version 3.55.2, updated 2026-09-08.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
No release notes were provided for this version.
age-of-kingsAssessed 2026-10-27 from 400 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
This assessment is produced automatically. Six independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text, the app manifest, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.