DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Star Hunter-Infinite Lagrange
Exptional Global · Lifestyle

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 412 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: High3 signal sources412 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.2.1282720 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.2.1282720, updated 2026-09-23.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

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 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 23 distinct reviewers (5.6% of 412 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.

Pay to progress

I've played this game for almost three years now. I really enjoyed it, but unfortunately, it's become more of a pay to win game. They've significantly reduced the drop rate for new blueprints now it's mostly just common ones all the time…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-01-19

It's sad to see this game lose its way this bad. It's all buy buy buy now. a complicated p2w bot filled scheme with added steps. Think your ships are maxed? Not a chance, they'll add more junk for you to buy. Get a refund if possible.

1★ · Google Play · 2025-07-07

For my first two seasons, the game was fun and challenging. Season 3 began the whales (pay to win) player dominance, which made playing the game absolutely pointless. I stopped playing because of this. If there was a system to make it…

3★ · Google Play · 2026-04-08

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: 1.2.12827203 independent signals412 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot 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.