Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-05 from 1,155 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 4.07.01101 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.07.01101, updated 2026-08-31.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 4.07.10101 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.07.10101, updated 2026-09-11.
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.
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
get ready to spend money if you want to compete in later rounds. the game is designed so you need to pay to access better guns and ammo. it's a joke they state they are serious about fair play. with each new update it's obvious the game…
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING I ok I'm about to put this out on social media about how bad this game cheats the player I've joined a club that rates games this one gets a aplus for being a game not worth playing unfair advantages to the…
Game is fun, but now it seems like every match you are up against someone with some sort of boost running. I can get perfect shots and they can knick the back end of the target and end up getting more points. Would be a lot more fun if…
Aggressive ad load
Love the game play, but you can't really get ahead unless you pay, you'll get matched up unevenly with players that have crazy guns they likely paid more money for than a real gun... And unless you pay, be prepared to watch A LOT of ads…
1 to 3 minutes beteeen each turn. way too many ads make the game suck!
Fun but tons of ads — In order to get better guns and compete you need to go through 100 ads a day and most are about 2 minutes long.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
the ads are so bad that it makes me want to delete the game.. i love the game. why llie and make fake ads? it kinda embarrassing that i love this game but the ads are so aawful. make the ads like the game really is..
this game is not worth it if you wanna advance you need to pay, there's no other way around. It not what it advertises
Another fake ad game — Nothing like the ads. Another pay to win game. Save your time.
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.
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.