What’s the catch? Pay to progress — reported by 34 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 32.40.00 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 32.40.00, updated 2026-09-14.
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 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.
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
Pay to win — Game used to be good but now its just pay to win. Challenges suck. Always getting people with maxed out 100rq cars. spent well over $1k and still struggle in matches.
Turns into a pay-to-win over time. — I had previously played Top Drives on both Android and iOS on and off for several years. I finally understood the game a lot better (after my ancient save was proven to have worthless cars). I also had…
Very fun but extremely pay to win — I have been playing this game for over 2 years now, I love the strategy it takes and no ads. The gameplay is very good, has intricate track designs, and a massive amount of cars to obtain. The bad side…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Do not play this. No support or play testing — Welcome to Top Drives, where you the player are the play tester. Multiple times over the last year has the developer launched untested events which later lead to mass players being punished…
False advertising — 1* for completely falsifying your ad to make it look good. Edit to dev response: Are you fluent in English? Your advertisements are fake. They do NOT depict the game you have. That is against the law and you are…
False advertising and scamming — Trying to buy a $2 bundle and it tried to charge my card $105 instead
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.