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.
Serious warnings 1 confirmed warning. Checked: 400 reviews, the Android app’s code, the store listing and the privacy label.
From our automated analysis, 30 Oct 2026. Every label links to its evidence in the full report below.
This analysis describes version 2.21.25 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 2.21.25, updated 2026-04-20.








Store screenshots supplied by the developer.
This is it. I guess it's the end of your life. Did you achieve everything you wanted? What would you do if you had another chance?
I can't bring you back... but what if I could bring you to an isekai, a medieval land full of powerful heroes and dominating factions competing for supremacy? Will you assemble your allies and climb the ranks with your keen tactics? The riches and beauty await, will you answer the call of the isekai?
[Every Lord Starts Somewhere]
In a world governed by superstition and fear, build a stronghold utilizing your advanced scientific knowledge and strategic insight to conquer ignorance and opposition. Assemble your team to help manage the operations on the home front and enjoy the rewards of a productive economy with just one click!
[Oaths of the Sword]
Might isn't always right, win the heart and loyalty of your followers with your charisma and intellect.…
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 12 distinct reviewers (about 1 in 33 reviews we read)
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.
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
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 observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.
The app's own text says: "Contact Customer Service"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
Package artefact
sha256:c4ee61b6550c96439c5eec8803cb9c1a68f58b18d973b8b7fedd9d3f66e58180Sells a randomised reward ("Fast forward") and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in the app's own text
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
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.
Package artefact
sha256:c4ee61b6550c96439c5eec8803cb9c1a68f58b18d973b8b7fedd9d3f66e58180The app's own text says: "Continue as %1$s"
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
Package artefact
sha256:c4ee61b6550c96439c5eec8803cb9c1a68f58b18d973b8b7fedd9d3f66e58180The app's own text says: "Open ad when you're back online."
This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.
The app's own copy describes working without a connection — offline mode, downloading for offline use, or content saved for later. Shown because readers filter on it; it is a feature, not a fairness property, and never counts for or against an app.
Package artefact
sha256:c4ee61b6550c96439c5eec8803cb9c1a68f58b18d973b8b7fedd9d3f66e58180400 reviews read for this analysis. Each observation keeps the sample and store it was based on.
First of all, this game is competitive between those who spend a lot and those who play alot (myself). I recommend playing on a fresh server and don't worry about being #1. EDIT I've realised this game becomes more and more hostile to F2P…
This game has somehow become even more pay to win then it was when it first released. Literally asking 50$ for a new character. Power creep is crazy. Do not play unless you feel like spending the GDP of a small nation.
Do not get into this game. As it stands it's one if the grossest pay to win games I've been on some of the events are 500 dollars and upwards to get guaranteed rewards and you can never get cosmetics or other in game items without putting…
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 2.21.25, scanned 30 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 2.21.25 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-30 .
The store currently lists version 2.21.25, updated 2026-04-20.
Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.
Fixes for known issues and feature optimizations.
No release notes were provided for this version.
refantasiaAssessed 2026-10-30 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.
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
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 recurring plan the store lists is named as weekly, the term read from the purchase names, with a list cut off at the store’s 10-item maximum not assessed; 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.