What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 46 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 26.0902.001 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 26.0902.001, updated 2026-09-23.
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.
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
Devs are greedy and don’t care — Devs are the greediest people I have even seen, you have to spend spend spend to even have a chance and I’m not talking a small amount, enough to buy a house. They just don’t care and encourage pay to win…
Fix Your Game — It seems like every time we come back from a system update the game glitches more than ever. If you can’t get the fix right then don’t bother trying it until you have it figured out. By your logic you basically fix it till…
Bad game, don’t play — This game was fun when it first started. But the developers killed it. They don’t care about making a fun game. They only care about money. All new content is pay to win and nothing that adds value to the fun of the…
Paywall blocks the basics
Money grab by developers. — Don’t download this game unless you’re welling to spend $1000’s of dollars to be competitive. Everything costs money and if you don’t spend money you’re going to get tore up. This game is a joke. If you’re a…
Honestly so frustrating — Game won’t let me transfer to a more active server or area and game play really doesn’t allow for any progress that isn’t behind a paywall. I’m kinda tired of having to pay to make a difference in a game that…
Click bait! Come on! — Advertised one thing and way to play but once the game is down loaded and started, it’s a totally different game, all about digging and repairing and building a bunker than it is actually fighting zombies! Never got…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
NOTHING LIKE THE ADS — NOTHING LIKE THE PHOTOS OR AD
Run far, far away! — I was a whale in this game and left a while ago. It is nothing but a money grab. Forget spending hundreds- you need to spend thousands to keep up (every few weeks). If you don’t, you’ll be kicked out of your alliance…
False Advertising — Good lord, this game is in no way what it is advertising. It looks nothing like that. It really should be illegal to try and fool people like that.
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.