Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 2,604 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 33931 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 33931, updated 2026-10-05.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 33544 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 33544, updated 2026-09-18.
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.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
The game ads are misleading
Ok — I have played this game for a few years now … it’s not bad … however .. the ad is very misleading .. these tasks are few and far bet
Fake — Nothing like the ad
Aggressive ad load
Good — I love this game But I get so many ads.. this game is challenging but I feel like you should base the whole game on dark king?
Scam — Can’t play the ad games, leech these frauds and never support their games
Poor function/too many ads — This game was too much work for a mental break
Progress pauses until you wait or pay
Pay to play — After you lose the small set of “lives”, the game offers you to pay for more lives or wait 15 minutes to be able to play again. So the devs lied in their ads about no pay-to-play or win. I immediately deleted the game and…
Beautifully designed, but systematically frustrating. — The graphics and animations in Royal Kingdom are undeniably top-notch, and the experience is entirely free of intrusive third-party ads. However, the game replaces traditional ads…
bogus — forces you to pay for power ups to continue after a certain point. the level is not able to be cleared until something is purchased and used to help clear it. spent 2 days now replaying the same level over and over, running out of…
Pay to progress
pay to win at higher levels was fun at first but once you get to a higher level you will not win without shelling out money yet another pay to play uninstalling
just another cheap pay to win cash grab
P2W — Holy pay to win slop. It’s almost as bad as candy crush for christs sake.
What this app sells
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.