What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 80 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 8.0.3 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 8.0.3, updated 2026-09-27.
What the analysis found
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.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
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
Pay to win botted game — This game sucks it seems like a lot of bots (the whole lobby is literally just after me for some great reason) 9 times put of 10 your teammates are genuinely terrible while ur enemies are so strong that u lose…
Frick P2W players — Good game but stop releasing broken heroes that you have to pay for.
Good game — Overall it’s a good game, the only problem its pretty pay to win. Most of the enemies are bots and everything is expensive.
Paywall blocks the basics
Not Fun After 30mins of Play — I was genuinely having a good time while playing this game, but then once you get to a certain point, there's no way of upgrading your character fast enough to make it fun (or not constantly losing) without…
A insanely good game comical diabolical pricing — To reiterate the game is wonderful best mobile game I’ve played in a long time but the pricing in this game is a absolute scam literally everything costs money and not like a lil couple…
Poor team balancing, must pay to win. — Poor team balancing. My teammates level is x2 times higher and so does my enemies, which makes playing difficult. You have to spend a lot of money to make significant progress in the game. Many…
What this app sells
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.
Show 8 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
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.
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.