Appworthy

Booblyc TD Realm Tower Defense

A guy falls asleep over his phone and wakes up inside the game he was playing.

Booblyc TD
Get it onGoogle Play
Google Play rating4.1★5.3K ratings
PriceFreeIn-app purchases
Age12+Store age rating
CategoryGames
DeveloperBooblyc TD

What we found

Full report

Some warnings 13 users report having to pay to progress; 12 users report an aggressive ad load. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 400 reviews, the store listing and the privacy label.

Money

Ads

From our automated analysis, 27 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.

This analysis describes version 1.0.786 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .

The store currently lists version 1.0.786, updated 2026-10-16.

Preview

Screenshot 1Screenshot 2Screenshot 3Screenshot 4Screenshot 5Screenshot 6Screenshot 7Screenshot 8

Store screenshots supplied by the developer.

About this app

A guy falls asleep over his phone and wakes up inside the game he was playing. The kingdom he lands in is under siege, everyone there is convinced he is a powerful mage, and nobody is interested in hearing otherwise. That is his entire plan. It goes exactly as well as you would expect.

Booblyc TD is a tower defense game with a story that talks back — over 300 levels of kingdom to defend, and all of it plays offline.

⚔️ Winner, Indie Cup Awards — Best Mobile Game

🏆 GameGathering Conference — Unusual Engine category

WHAT IT DOES DIFFERENTLY

• Your towers are not bolted to a tile. Place a defender on its stand, then move it around that point mid-battle to meet the waves of enemies actually coming down the lane.

• Over 80 collectible cards — weapons, armour, magic, kings, pets — that slot onto your units and upgrade their skills.…

From the developer’s store description.

For developers and the curious

The full report

The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.

Findings and evidence

1 published · 2 shown, not confirmed

Positives 1

Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.

Developer says data deletion can be requested

Measured

The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

Sources
The store listing
Agreement
A measured fact from one deterministic, checkable source.
Where measured
From the Google Play listing
Definition

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.

Open evidence

One source only — shown, not confirmed 2

Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.

Aggressive ad load

One source only

Aggressive ad load: raised by 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 33 reviews we read)

Sources
User reviews
Agreement
Only one kind of source so far. Shown, not counted.
Where measured
From Google Play reviews

This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.

Definition

Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.

Open evidence
How we know
Share and sample
3.0% of the 400 reviews read.

Pay to progress

One source only

Pay to progress: raised by 13 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 31 reviews we read)

Sources
User reviews
Agreement
Only one kind of source so far. Shown, not counted.
Where measured
From Google Play reviews

This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.

Definition

Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.

Open evidence
How we know
Share and sample
3.3% of the 400 reviews read.

Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.

What reviewers report

400 reviews read · 2 review-based observations

400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.

Aggressive ad load

Shown, not confirmed

It's OK I guess... But it certainly should have less commercials. To be able to advance in the game it's virtually impossible not have to watch commercials (or pay). I'm used to games having commercials, but this game is a bit over the…

4★ · Google Play · 2020-11-21

I have played this game for about 2 months now. Today it will be uninstalled. I've spent some money on it but overall its quite frustrating. You have 1 card improver in the game, you pay €21 to access a second 1 for 30 days but its not…

1★ · Google Play · 2020-07-25

Positive sides are totally unique experience with "towers" and upgrades. It's TD but it does not look like it - it does not have any towers) Fair difficulty, awesome graphic style, several different game modes except campaign. Fantastic…

5★ · Google Play · 2020-10-15

Pay to progress

Shown, not confirmed

This game does take time to progress after a certain point if you don't want to spend money, but it is very possible to progress for free if you keep at. These reviews from people seem terribly lazy, either be patient or pay money it's…

5★ · Google Play · 2021-10-19

I like the graphics very much, just like Kingdom Rush's. Yeah, good tactics are needed to win, but great cards and heroes are much needed. I'm struggling to win in some levels, I keep losing until I ran out of energy. I don't like…

3★ · Google Play · 2020-06-21

It's a fantastic game with a great story. Which is a shame because it's fully pay to win. I don't mind watching ads I don't mind paying smaller amounts of money. But pay to win games like this one require you to keep paying stupid…

1★ · Google Play · 2021-08-03

A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.

Measurements

5 measured · 3 not assessed

“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.

From store data and reviews

Developer replies to reviews
Replies to at least 1 review in 20
Price in the store description
The store description doesn’t list prices (most don’t)
Cancelling, in the store description
The store description doesn’t say how to cancel (most don’t)
Themes reported by reviewers
2 themes reported
Counted from the reviews we have read for this app. "No theme reported" means no theme reached our reporting threshold — it is not a finding that nothing is wrong with this app, and we do not say it is.
Five-star share of ratings
65–79% five-star
Arithmetic on the stores' own published rating counts. It says nothing about why the ratings fall where they do.

In the app package we scanned

No package has been scanned for this app, so nothing is published about what it ships. That is an absence of evidence, not a finding.

Sensitive permissions
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
Analytics or tracking SDKs in the scanned package
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
Advertising SDKs in the scanned package
Not assessed
No package has been scanned for this app
How we know

Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured

Versions and dates analysed

Assessed 27 Oct 2026

This analysis describes version 1.0.786 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-27 .

The store currently lists version 1.0.786, updated 2026-10-16.

Store update history

Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.

Google Play

Version 1.0.786 · 2026-10-16

No release notes were provided for this version.

Assessment record

Status
Automated analysis
App identifier
booblyc-td-realm-tower-defense
Assessment date
27 Oct 2026
Sources used
3 independent signals: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure
Reviews read
400
Package examined
No package scan
Human inspection
Not completed

Assessed 2026-10-27 from 400 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.

How we know
Measurement vocabulary
1.4

How this page was produced

Analyzed 2026-10-27 Version analyzed: 1.0.7863 independent signals400 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.

Store facts

Google Play

What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.

Google Play

Store rating
4.09 ★ · 5,282 ratings
Version
1.0.786
Updated
16 Oct 2026
Price
Free · In-app purchases
Age rating
12+
Size
Not supplied
Open in Google Play
Developer
Booblyc TD
Category
Games
Listing price
Free · In-app purchases

Purchases the store lists

 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices.

Method and limits

What this report can and cannot show

How the automated analysis works

This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, 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.

Limits of this report

  • A package scan is static. It identifies code and text in one Android build. It does not measure a live ad session, test a deletion request, or count the steps needed to cancel.
  • Reviews keep their sample. A review-only charge shows distinct reviewers, the share and the sample size, and is published only once it clears that label’s published threshold. Calibration labels are machine-drafted and not yet confirmed by a person.
  • Not assessed is a state. It is never a zero and never a pass.
  • A missing label is not a clean bill of health. It means the evidence did not support one, not that the app is problem-free.
Not yet human-reviewed. A hands-on test can confirm or contradict a finding and adds its own measurements; it does not change a measurement row. Hands-on inspections are not yet open.
Review thresholds Read the methodology For developers

Request a correction

[email protected]

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.

Report a factual error — free Email a correction