We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 1.0.634 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.0.634, updated 2026-09-28.
What the analysis found
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.
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.
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Too much waiting — A fun game, especially for GOT fans, collecting hero’s and fighting epic battles. But there isn’t enough to do besides waiting for energy to recoup. After two days of playing it’s sit around and wait for energy to…
Timers — There are no timers to tell you how it’s takes for every raid and dragon tokens. Also how long does it take for energy to refill on its own? Amateur hour.
Pay to win garbage like always — I’ve played the game for 3 hours today, already hit a pay wall with the campaign where I can’t progress. Also can’t even play the game because I ran out of energy and can only refill it by paying gold or…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch — Fun game. Just ran by greedy developers that bully you into spending. I can’t support this business model as it only drives players away. I’d advise you not to spend much on the game bc your purchases will be in vain as…
Bait and Switch — I used to like this game until recently. Players are shown rewards that they can win in certain events. They battle, spend money, and spend their time climbing to the top only for them not to get the rewards that they…
Bait and switch — Not only does everything cost a stupid amount if money, im saying like $50 for some gems to open 10 summons and then you get nothing good in the summon. But it seems every update they somehow ruin the teams that you…
Pay to progress
Pay to win — Game is pay to win to much.
So so — 2026. Update. Only games worth playing on mobile are games you pay full price for. Anything with a store isn’t made for players. It’s made for pockets. Update: No Thank You Updated: MEH. Way all these games same. Micro…
Keeps getting more p2w — This game is the definition of pay to win now. They just keep buffing all of the dragons and nerfing all of the heroes. What’s the point anymore?
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.