DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Plague Inc.
Ndemic Creations · Games

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.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources1,041 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 1.26.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.26.0, updated 2026-09-28.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.25.2 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.26.1, updated 2026-09-28.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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.

Multiple ad networks bundled
Measuredfrom SDKs in the app packageartefact 340f479eaf43…
The package embeds several distinct advertising or mediation SDKs — a stack built for ad volume, not for a single house ad.
What we saw: Bundles 16 distinct ad networks / mediation SDKs: Amazon Publisher Services, AppLovin MAX, BidMachine, Chartboost and 12 more

Positive evidence 1

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

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 5

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.

In the app's own text: Hard to cancel
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 340f479eaf43…
Cancelling the subscription is blocked, hidden, multi-step, or simply does not take effect.
What we saw: Sells a subscription in-app but ships no cancel or manage-subscription text of its own, leaving the store's settings as the only exit
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 5 distinct reviewers (1.3% of 371 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Paywall blocks the basics
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.
What we saw: Paywall blocks the basics: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (0.7% of 670 reviews scanned)
In the app's own text: Trial terms not stated in the app's own text
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the app's own on-screen text.artefact 340f479eaf43…
The app's own screens offer a free trial without stating, beside it, what happens when the trial ends. Read this as context rather than as a charge: renewal terms are normally shown on the store's purchase sheet instead, which we cannot see, and we can only observe one kind of evidence for this — so it is shown, but never counted as a charge.
What we saw: Offers a free trial ("Free Trial") with no renewal price, renewal date or auto-renew notice anywhere in the app's own text
From the store listing: Usable without an account
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store privacy disclosure.view evidence
The app's own screens offer a way past sign-up — guest access, skipping, or browsing before registering — rather than gating the product behind an account. The store's privacy disclosure is checked alongside it: that disclosure is self-reported, so it corroborates this credit rather than establishing it.
What we saw: The store privacy disclosure (2 entries) links no contact details or identifiers to the user — consistent with an app that does not require an account. Self-reported by the developer.

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

L p2w — I bought expansion packs, but never got them for those who are reading don’t buy this game on mobile pc is better unless u want to have a terrible experience.

1★ · App Store · 2026-07-01

Garbage — Absolute waste of time, P2W garbage. Scenarios are near impossible on “Normal” difficulty and to add on top of that, no matter what difficulty you play on, the cure will always be 30% or more complete by the time any ship…

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-03

Horrible gameplay P2W — This game is insanely hard and getting to the final diseases is impossible. It makes the game here purposely to make you spend more money on upgrades, if you don’t have them you can’t win

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-01

Paywall blocks the basics

My account?? — Love this game, I’ve been playing since 2017. Spent money on all the packs. Full game unlocked. Came back for 2026 update and now it’s expecting me to pay again? I’ve supported this game for so long, crazy all my outbreak…

2★ · App Store · 2026-08-19

Everything is locked up — I mean i already paid to get the game but now its asking for more money to play the full game.

3★ · App Store · 2026-07-04

Why so stingy — I remember playing this when I was a kid. Now everything is behind a paywall?? Like the game itself is ¢.99, the upgrade being $7.99 is just so insane 😭

1★ · App Store · 2026-06-26

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 packs6
Necroa Virus Expansion PackPack$1.99
Neurax Worm Expansion PackPack$1.99
Plague PackPack$12.99
Scenario PackPack$2.99
Simian Flu Expansion PackPack$1.99
Shadow Plague Expansion PackPack$1.99
Show 4 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

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

Unlock 7 Standard PlaguesTerm not stated$2.99
Unlock All GenesTerm not stated$7.99
Unlock CheatsTerm not stated$9.99
Unlock VirusTerm not stated$0.99
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.
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 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 1.26.0 (App Store), 1.25.2 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,041 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.