DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Baseball Clash: Real-time game
Miniclip.com · Games

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,067 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.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: Medium3 signal sources1,067 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 1.2.0036757 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.2.0036757, updated 2026-09-28.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.2.0036260 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.2.0036757, updated 2026-09-23.

The app has been updated since this analysis. The findings on this page describe version 1.2.0036260, not the version now listed on the store.

Release notes for the newer versions, in the developer’s own words:

Version 1.2.0036757 · 2026-09-23

No release notes were provided for this version.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 1

Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.

Reported by users: Pay to progress
Reported by 38 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Raised by 38 distinct reviewers — 7.2% of the 530 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
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.
What we saw: 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

What reviewers said

Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.

Pay to progress

been playing thisbgame for 2 years. today was the last straw due to the pay to win schematic. uninstalling now, DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!! 100% pay to win. if I could give this game a negative I would. I quit.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-01

in the beginning everyone is evenly matched. However, once you fight your way close to the bronze league, you must spend money if you want to win. My two biggest disappointments are the game lagging and scoring you out when you have beat…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-07-20

NEEDS A LAWSUIT. I WANT ALL MY MONEY BACK. I WARN YOU NOW, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!! PAY TO WIN! THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY AND RIG THE GAME LATER ON. I guarantee this predatory game will be subject of a HUGE LAWSUIT in the near future. The game…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-26

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices, so this list covers the other store only.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.

Hands-on inspections are not yet open.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 1.2.0036757 (App Store), 1.2.0036260 (Google Play)3 independent signals1,067 reviews scannedConfidence: MediumNot 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.