DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Kiss of War: Dead Blood
Tap4fun (Hong Kong) Limited · Lifestyle

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 406 user reviews, the app's package, the store listing and its privacy label.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High6 signal sources406 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

We cannot tell which version of the app this analysis describes. It was run 2026-10-04 , and the app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.174.0, updated 2026-09-18.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 1

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

No advertising SDKs
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 2818671afe3b…
No advertising or mediation SDK of any kind was found in the package.
What we saw: No advertising or mediation SDK among the 7 SDKs detected in the package

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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.

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 15 distinct reviewers (3.7% of 406 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

Game is PAY TO WIN. With each update, the Developers take away something that F2P need to better compete against P2W. The game also records your progress and as you get closer to upgrades, it gives you less if the items you need to try…

1★ · Google Play · 2025-05-21

STAY AWAY! Quitting this has actually helped me recover from the toxicity encountered in the game. Reporting the threats did absolutely nothing, and was on the brink of financial, mental, and social collapse. Completely predatory in it's…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-05-24

Loved the game, played for many years but it's overwhelming a pay 2 win thus quite unbalanced with small spenders, hope theres a way to balance that out. Without paying it'll take you years to catch up and get promoted from dog chow to…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-05-21

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: unknown6 independent signals406 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.