DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Doomsday: Undead Bride
IGG SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. · 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 sources2,527 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 1.61.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.61.0, updated 2026-09-28.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.61.5 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.61.5, updated 2026-09-30.

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 19.99 — a 20x 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 1b47f68970e5…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 9 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 4

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 1b47f68970e5…
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 ("onPurchaseResponse: already purchased, should never get here for a consumable.") 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 1b47f68970e5…
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: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 15 distinct reviewers (2.8% of 532 reviews scanned)
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 27 distinct reviewers (1.4% of 1995 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.

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

still running fake ads — the ads are nothing like the game. no you don’t get to chose where and what type of base to build.

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-24

Fake ads — Good game but I’m tired of seeing the fake ai ads it’s funny it says in the ad stop playing these fake building games n the ad shows a completely different game do not download it if u think it will be what it’s advertised as

2★ · App Store · 2026-08-19

Fake ad for a city/base build game — Funny how these city/base building games always have the fake ads to bring you in. Shows you a snippet of game play and you end up having to build a base, join a guild, etc. Why not just create a game…

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-13

Pay to progress

it pay to win so I don't like it much

2★ · Google Play · 2026-10-03

No way this is 4,7 stars — Definitely pay to win, this game copies about 6 other games just a different story, progress is very fast at the beginning but then you have no choice but to pay for everything . Played for a couple months but…

1★ · App Store · 2026-09-02

Pay to win — The game started off great but as usual the devs ruin it by turning into another money pit. The difference between player strength is ridiculous now. It’s pay event after pay event. New hero’s constantly, new beasts, new…

1★ · App Store · 2026-08-29

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.

Subscriptions2
VIP Pack 1Term not stated$0.99
Subscription A3Term not stated$4.99
One-off packs8
Special Pack R1Pack$4.99
Special Pack S1Pack$9.99
Special Pack O1Pack$0.99
Special Pack U1Pack$19.99
Special Pack D26Pack$4.99
Special Pack Q1Pack$2.99
Special Pack P1Pack$1.99
Special Pack D57Pack$4.99
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: 1.61.0 (App Store), 1.61.5 (Google Play)6 independent signals2,527 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.