DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Diablo Immortal
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · Games

What’s the catch? Nothing we could corroborate against this app.

Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

0 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources1,063 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 5.1.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 5.1.2, updated 2026-09-21.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 5.1.2 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 5.1.2, updated 2026-09-16.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Context 1

Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.

Cheapest and priciest options are far apart
MeasuredPublished as context — deliberately not a charge · from the store listingview evidence
The disclosed in-app purchases span an unusually wide price range. Published as context: the cheapest and priciest items may be different kinds of product entirely, so the spread alone deducts nothing.
What we saw: In-app purchases run from USD 0.99 to USD 99.99 — a 101x spread across 10 items

Positive evidence 2

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

No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact bea1be9d6fe5…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 6 SDKs detected in the package
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

One source only — shown, not confirmed 3

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.

In the app's own text: Paywall with no way past it
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact bea1be9d6fe5…
A paywall screen ships with no dismiss, skip or 'maybe later' affordance anywhere in the package, so the app's own text offers no way in without paying.
What we saw: Ships a purchase screen ("Paywall intent is not provided.") with no dismiss, skip or "continue free" text anywhere in the package
In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact bea1be9d6fe5…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Sells a subscription in-app but ships no cancel or manage-subscription text of its own, leaving the store's settings as the only exit
Reported by users: Pay to progress
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Pay to progress: raised by 22 distinct reviewers (2.5% of 884 reviews scanned)

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

the game is ok but definitely a pay to win game. you can get all the way through without buying anything. however you will never defeat diablo to complete the story without buying a lot of upgrades. with that said it was fun but…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-22

Great Gameplay, Bad Monetization "Amazing graphics and combat, but ruined by extreme P2W (Resonance system). The game is poorly optimized for Android; causing overheating and massive battery drain. Also, 20GB+ size is too bloated. Please…

2★ · Google Play · 2026-09-28

Nice game.. the graphics are improving.. the single player idea is now better.. but the P2W is still not balance to F2P.. make a chance for F2P players to grow in grinding and looting.. the drops and finding good items and also the crest…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-29

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 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.

Subscriptions1
Empowered Battle PassTerm not stated$4.99
One-off packs3
Pack of 7200 Eternal OrbsPack$99.99
Beginner's PackPack$0.99
Pack of 1650 Eternal OrbsPack$24.99
Show 6 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Seeker's SuppliesTerm not stated$5.99
Collector's Empowered BPTerm not stated$14.99
Boon of PlentyTerm not stated$9.99
Rift-Runner’s SuppliesTerm not stated$9.99
Mad King's Breach TroveTerm not stated$0.99
Aspirant’s SuppliesTerm not stated$8.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.
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. 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.

 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 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 5.1.2 (App Store), 5.1.2 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,063 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.