DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Screwdom 3D
iKame Games - Zego Studio · Lifestyle

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 699 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.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: Low3 signal sources699 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 13.3.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 13.3.1, updated 2026-09-25.

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.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
Reported by 136 usersReported by users, not measured — nothing we can inspect could show this either wayview evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Raised by 136 distinct reviewers — 19.5% of the 699 reviews scanned on this store leg (Google Play).

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

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: 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 22 distinct reviewers (3.1% of 699 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.

Aggressive ad load

ads on every level!! so annoying

1★ · Google Play · 2026-08-25

Would be satisfying without the lengthy, unskippable ads that make my phone hot. Watching ads for a boost is acceptable, but the ads come every level as well, and usually take a solid minute and three clicks to escape. It was an excellent…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-08-20

its engaging, responsive, and spinning the items don't give me a sense of motion sickness. but LOTS of ads, there are spaces for 5 "extra" screws but really it should be 4, because right when you fill up to 5 you lose. (if the spaces…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-16

Pay to progress

Fun game but you have to spend money to keep playing.

4★ · Google Play · 2026-09-19

The game is interesting, I even pay for ad free, but after paying for ads free I lose the ability to watch ads for rewards or for lives. The watch ad button just disappears, making this game pay to win.

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-29

I love the game, but since paying to remove the ads - I've found myself having less of an opportunity to win items that help you with the levels. It's become very much a pay to win game & that's disheartening. I'm addicted to the…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-09-20

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells
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. 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 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 13.3.13 independent signals699 reviews scannedConfidence: LowNot 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.