Appworthy
Pay to progress
2 independent sources agreePay to progress: raised by 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 33 reviews we read)
Definition
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Last Empire - War Z: Strategy
World BOSS is coming, let’s focus fire!
Interesting Game Network LimitedGoogle Play rating3.6★834.3K ratings
PriceFreeIn-app purchases
Age12+Store age rating
CategoryGames
DeveloperInteresting Game Network Limited
What we found
Full reportSerious warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
Money
- Free to download · in-app purchases. Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices.
- Pay to progressConfirmed
- If you subscribe through the store, cancel in Google Play → Payments & subscriptions → Subscriptions. Deleting the app doesn’t cancel a subscription.
Positives
From our automated analysis, 25 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 1.0.439 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.439, updated 2026-09-28.
Preview
Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
About this app
World BOSS is coming, let’s focus fire!
Gather the crowds! It’s killin time!
Protect your empire by shooting and battling the zombie army that wants to steal your resources in Last Empire - War Z, a strategy RPG and base building war game. Build an army with other players from around the globe and plan an attack with your own zombie army! Develop your kingdom and befriend empire allies to combat both zombie and human enemies. Do you have what it takes to be the strongest commander?
Last Empire - War Z is a zombie-themed free-to-play war strategy game. Combat Zombie troops and survivors to protect your empire against the upcoming zombie war. Team up with friends from around the world to build an army, increase your zombie defense strategy and participate in special events.…
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
Things to watch for 1
Findings that met the published evidence standard.
Open evidence
Positives 2
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
No advertising SDKs
MeasuredNo advertising or mediation SDK among the 7 SDKs detected in the package
Definition
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
How we know
Package artefact
sha256:b884b683d08d7a9d10d521fce98f04ffacf2b0208b6b03e68277ae0e1f1963dfDeveloper says data deletion can be requested
MeasuredThe 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
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.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
Loot boxes with no stated odds
One source onlySells a randomised reward ("You can have up to 200 mask sets installed. Unused masks are archived when you install new sets.") and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in the app's own text
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Definition
The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.
How we know
Package artefact
sha256:b884b683d08d7a9d10d521fce98f04ffacf2b0208b6b03e68277ae0e1f1963dfUsable without an account
One source onlyThe app's own text says: "Add Masks"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Definition
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.
How we know
Package artefact
sha256:b884b683d08d7a9d10d521fce98f04ffacf2b0208b6b03e68277ae0e1f1963dfWorks offline
One source onlyThe app's own text says: "%1$d chat"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Definition
The app's own copy describes working without a connection — offline mode, downloading for offline use, or content saved for later. Shown because readers filter on it; it is a feature, not a fairness property, and never counts for or against an app.
How we know
Package artefact
sha256:b884b683d08d7a9d10d521fce98f04ffacf2b0208b6b03e68277ae0e1f1963dfWhat reviewers report
400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
Pay to progress
Published findingBeen playing it since it was first launched and I appreciate how much they've added to the game, the only problem is that it's now more of a pay-to-win model than before where grinding was rewarded and paying was optional. Also, I think…
Do NOT play this "game". There is zero competitive play among players who do not spend or those who spend modestly. All of the events have deceptive odds for rewards (equal sizes pie pieces in picture, odds for the items you want less…
This is probably the most disgusting pay to win game out there. Even to be able to experience some game features you have to pay. You can not compete with the big players who spend thousands of dollars a month, and so this game becomes…
A sampled review illustrates one person’s experience. It does not establish a finding on its own.
Measurements
“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
1 theme 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
Under 65% 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
Android package 1.0.439, scanned 25 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.
Sensitive permissions
3–5 requested
Counted against a fixed list of eighteen sensitive Android permissions: sixteen runtime permissions, among them location, camera, microphone, contacts and SMS, and two the user must switch on in system settings, drawing over other apps and usage access. Requesting one is not itself a finding.
Analytics or tracking SDKs in the scanned package
1–2 found
Advertising SDKs in the scanned package
None found
Counted as distinct SDKs in the package we scanned. One mediation bundle can contribute several, so this is not a count of advertisers.
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
This analysis describes version 1.0.439 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-25 .
The store currently lists version 1.0.439, updated 2026-09-28.
Store update history
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Google Play
Version 1.0.439 · 2026-09-28
No release notes were provided for this version.
Assessment record
- Status
- Automated analysis
- App identifier
last-empire- Assessment date
- 25 Oct 2026
- Sources used
- 6 independent signals: 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
- Reviews read
- 400
- Package examined
- Android · 1.0.439 · scanned 25 Oct 2026
- Human inspection
- Not completed
Assessed 2026-10-25 from 400 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.
How we know
- Measurement vocabulary
- 1.4
How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-25 Version analyzed: 1.0.4396 independent signals400 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: 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.
Store facts
What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.
Google Play
- Store rating
- 3.61 ★ · 834,347 ratings
- Version
- 1.0.439
- Updated
- 28 Sep 2026
- Price
- Free · In-app purchases
- Age rating
- 12+
- Size
- Not supplied
- Developer
- Interesting Game Network Limited
- 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
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.
Request a correction
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.