DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Polygun Arena: Online Shooter
SIRIUS GAMES · 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.

2 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: High6 signal sources1,418 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-05
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version v1.6000 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version v1.6000, updated 2026-09-30.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 1.3507 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 1.6000, updated 2026-09-29.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

The catch list 2

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 d906bc28720b…
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
Reported by users: Pay to progress
Reported by 66 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advancement or competition is gated behind spending money rather than playing.
What we saw: Raised by 66 distinct reviewers — 12.9% of the 510 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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 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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 13 distinct reviewers (1.4% of 908 reviews scanned)
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 d906bc28720b…
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

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 nice but it's pay to win

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-20

Awesome game at first but after you rank up to a certain level you run into players that are spending real money to win. stuff like flanking a player and almost emptying your shotgun into the side of their head just for him to turn and…

2★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

This is a boring game that is pay-to-win with the worst customer service ever. Do not recommend getting it.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-03

Aggressive ad load

ads have ruined this game

1★ · Google Play · 2026-10-04

The Developers Force you to watch ads, you can't play game if you don't watch ads. It is not voluntarily, they literally force you to watch ads..

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-28

worst game ever not only p2w also forced ads after every game.everything you have to get is by watching ads which are more than 30 second long and you can't skip them.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-09-25

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.

Subscriptions2
Weekly SubscriptionWeekly$9.99
Weekly SubscriptionWeekly$4.99
One-off packs4
Starter PackPack$1.99
Pro Starter PackPack$4.99
Diamond Pack 2Pack$4.99
Diamond Pack 1Pack$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.

Lucky Offer 1Term not stated$0.99
League 1 OfferTerm not stated$0.99
Diamond Mine 1Term not stated$0.99
Bank Robbery 1Term 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 2026-10-05 Version analyzed: v1.6000 (App Store), 1.3507 (Google Play)6 independent signals1,418 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.