Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 945 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.
App Store
This analysis describes version 2.2.26 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.2.26, updated 2026-09-22.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2.2.26 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.2.26, updated 2026-09-21.
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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
Game was fun at first, really liked the story and was playing through that and finding it enjoyable. Now for the cons PAY TO WIN not pay to play. As the game progress along it becomes a pvp style game such as AFK heroes. update: pay to…
i was going to come back to the game, knowing it's a pay to play game but at least 50%, but when i saw the VIP system and how the game added many paying ways, the game became 90% pay to win if you looking for fighting game, Graphics are…
Gatcha game with small base building elements for idle based upgrades. Significantly p2w (typical player is expected to pay $2,000 - $4,000) as it does not give daily or even occasional f2p 'gifts' as all other gatcha games do. IP is only…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Sub par — Cool concept but poorly executed bait and switch and full of bugs I would not suggest this game to anyone.
Devaluation of Paid Content & Misleading Monetization — This is a formal complaint regarding repeated post-purchase changes to paid characters and kits. Bait and switch tactics after spending hundreds, if not thousands of euros just to…
Obnoxious “game” — Just an obnoxious amount of clutter all over the screen. Clutter causes resources to be stolen when trying to adjust the view. Excessive takeover screens with redundant info. UI is a mess. Crashes frequently. Barely a…
Paywall blocks the basics
Game was fun at first, really liked the story and was playing through that and finding it enjoyable. Now for the cons PAY TO WIN not pay to play. As the game progress along it becomes a pvp style game such as AFK heroes. update: pay to…
Recent updates completely ruined game balance. Constant need to rotate characters means idle res gathering is capped too low for consistent progress. New characters prohibitively expensive to obtain with upgrading being hit and miss…
Decent game, many complaints — Quick overview Fun to collect hero’s if you like DC Game is targeted toward people who are willing to spend $1000 on it but as a F2P you can manage As F2P, it takes a long to time to really get a good lineup…
What this app sells
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.