DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Ludo STAR
Gameberry Labs · Games

We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.

Nothing unfair corroborated · unauditedConfidence: High3 signal sources516 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.372.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.372.1, updated 2026-09-25.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

From the store listing: Loot boxes with no stated odds
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store listing.view evidence
The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.
What we saw: The store lists 1 randomised-reward purchase ("STAR Starter Gold Pack") and the app's own text states no drop rates or odds
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 10 distinct reviewers (1.9% of 516 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

Pay to win — I played with a lot of my friends and they always win because they pay and me I never pay and guess what I never win so this game is trash.

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-31

Worst Gambling Mechanics Ever — The mechanics of how gems are used are beyond insane. Straight up ludicrous. I went through 500 gems in a single game. Cost 5 gems for a re-do, all the way to 54 gems per re-do. A pay to win garbage scheme…

1★ · App Store · 2026-05-10

Bloody Scammers pay to win — You will not in a single match properly until you spend in high end match.

1★ · App Store · 2026-05-02

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.

One-off packs9
STAR Starter Gems PackPack$0.99
Gems BIG Pack (1000 Gems)Pack$1.99
STAR Big Gems PackPack$2.99
Gems Super Pack (3000 gems)Pack$4.99
STAR Starter Gold PackPack$0.99
Star Gems PackPack$0.99
STAR Large Gems PackPack$9.99
Hearts Starter PackPack$0.99
Star Gems PackPack$2.99
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Gems OfferTerm not stated$3.99
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.

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

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.

 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 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: 1.372.13 independent signals516 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.