What’s the catch? Multiple ad networks bundled — measured, backed by SDKs in the app package.
Analyzed automatically from 6 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 4.1.0 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2.0, updated 2026-09-17.
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.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 4
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.
Aggressive ad load
As someone who loves the original Peggle on PC, this game feels a lot like it... for the first little while. But the further in you get, the more the mobile game nonsense becomes unavoidable. They play ads after EVERY level and EVERY…
I don't understand the hate, this game is fantastic. I think peggle works better in a mobile medium than it did as a pc/ Xbox game, and I'm not a mobile game person at all. Difficulty wise, it's good, anyone who has a problem with it…
There's a level early on that is specifically designed to be impossible to pass without purchasing more lives. Additionally, there are ads after every level but no option to simply buy the game outright and get rid of ads. So, you have to…
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
As someone who loves the original Peggle on PC, this game feels a lot like it... for the first little while. But the further in you get, the more the mobile game nonsense becomes unavoidable. They play ads after EVERY level and EVERY…
The game was fun when I played it as a kid on my sisters iPod. Now, as an adult, it's frustrating. The levels tend to get different. Now, that wouldn't be a problem at all. You run out of balls, and then you just restart. Simple, right?…
Just let people buy the full game. Gimmicky ways to intentionally fail levels to force people to buy lives or power ups. You'd think the micro transactions on lives and power ups would be enough. But wait long enough and you also get ads…
Pay to progress
Excellent game. I don't know why people complained about it being so hard (and *therefore* having to spend money to advance in the game), I've completed it without spending a penny on it. Loved Peggle since first playing it almost(?!)…
Too hard. Need to pay to win
ads before and after every round. pay to win
What this app sells
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.