What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 35 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 1.9.1 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 1.9.1, updated 2026-09-30.
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.
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.
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
Extremely P2W — For the first couple of days, games were fun. Until climbing around Titanium I, you start to match up with HEAVILY p2w players, like tens of thousands of dollars invested players dominating the ladder, and casual 3v3…
Review — good game but very pay to win and u can only play if you spend money pretty much
No Updates, Pay to Win — The game is inconsistent with updates, they’re constantly trying to pull money out of you anyway they can, and every new player is pretty much exactly like the position before with high attributes forcing to spend…
Aggressive ad load
Wait time — Just going to say wait time be absolutely to long it should be rewarded more since the wait time is so long I use 1 hour experience and it totally went to waste because of the wait times I feel like that’s a rip off and as…
Well done — Was curious so I downloaded. I read the reviews whenever I try a new game out. If they say there’s too many ads or something negative about the game then I pass. The reviews were solid on this game and as I enjoy sports games…
It takes forever to play the game — Where to start. This game has blatant grooming skills to get addicted. It makes you upgrade your character, gives you free tokens, and teaches you that spending is encouraged off the bat. I’ve never…
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.