DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Trivia Crack Retro Brain Games
Etermax · Games

What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 120 users.

Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.

1 on the catch list · analyzedConfidence: Low3 signal sources501 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 1.229.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 1.229.0, updated 2026-09-16.

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 120 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 120 distinct reviewers — 24.0% of the 501 reviews scanned on this store leg (App Store).

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.

From the store listing: Loot boxes with no stated odds
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is the store listing.view evidence
The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.
What we saw: The store lists 2 randomised-reward purchases ("Trivia Crack Tiny Gold Chest", "Small Gold Chest") and the app's own text states no drop rates or odds
Reported by users: Progress pauses until you wait or pay
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Use is rationed by an energy/hearts/lives meter that runs out and forces a wait or a purchase.
What we saw: Energy / timer gating: raised by 9 distinct reviewers (1.8% of 501 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

Mostly Ads — You still be inundated with ads. Every few questions, you’ll receive an ad - win or lose. Within a couple minutes of starting, after answering 5/5 questions, I got stuck in an ad. Had to shut down and restart app to get out…

3★ · App Store · 2026-05-05

A few problems but good game — 1.kids please add a kid mode because little kids want to answer questions correctly please make it 12 and under please thank you. 2.to much ads please make 4 ads every time you get on. 3.lives you know what…

5★ · App Store · 2026-04-14

Ram — TOO MANY ADDS

4★ · App Store · 2026-01-25

Progress pauses until you wait or pay

Pay to win trash — The game would be legitimately good if it didnt ask 5 dollars every time you load in or bug you with ads after watching 3 ads i get you need to make some money to keep going but 10 to 6 bucks for a nothing burger of…

1★ · App Store · 2025-01-25

Pay to play — You have to pay for “lives” to play this game or wait for your lives to regenerate. How money hungry can you be

1★ · App Store · 2024-12-13

This game is still garbage — This is a extension to my last one I just realized that you can’t play any game at all when you run out of lives and I see that you offer a ad blocker but don’t you think a ad EVERY turn is a little (very)…

1★ · App Store · 2024-12-04

What this app sells

Every purchase the store discloses. Store listing
 What this app sells

From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.

Subscriptions1
VIP Membership - MonthlyMonthly$1.99
One-off packs6
Trivia Crack 2 Head-Start PackPack$0.99
Trainee Pack Pack$4.99
Trivia Crack Tiny Gold ChestPack$0.99
Trivia Crack 2 Adept packPack$8.99
Small Gold ChestPack$3.49
Piggy BankPack$5.49
Show 3 more purchases we couldn’t categorise

These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.

Special OfferTerm not stated$1.99
Carnival PartyTerm not stated$1.99
Trivia Crack No more Ads!Term not stated$4.99
This list is cut off. Apple shows at most 10 in-app purchases, and this app is at the limit — so it very likely sells more than we can see.

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 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 1.229.03 independent signals501 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.