Are mobile games offering to pay users real money, like Solitaire Royal, a scam?
Executive summary
Mobile games that advertise "real money" payouts—examples include Solitaire Royale and variants like Solitaire Cash—are not universally fraudulent schemes but functionally operate as competitive, deposit-backed games with clear risks: many reputable reviews and testers confirm payouts occur, while players and consumer complaint sites also describe delays, fees, and experiences that feel like scams [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What "real money" solitaire apps actually are
These apps run tournament-style competitions where players often pay an entry fee to compete and the prize pool is distributed among top finishers, meaning advertised prize pools are split and an individual never receives the headline amount unless they are the sole winner (FinanceBuzz on Solitaire Royale) [1]. Review outlets that tested these games categorize them as skill-based competitive platforms rather than guaranteed earners—payouts are possible, but the model relies on entry fees, in-app purchases, and ad revenue to fund prizes (TrustDALE on Solitaire Cash; FinanceBuzz top list) [2] [6].
2. Evidence payouts exist — but expectations matter
Multiple hands-on reviews report successful withdrawals, sometimes after processing delays of days to weeks, which supports the claim these apps will pay under normal circumstances [2] [1] [3]. At the same time, payouts often require meeting minimum withdrawal thresholds, passing identity verification, and waiting periods that can be used by apps to slow or deter claims—details reviewers flagged as common and important to check before depositing [2] [6] [1].
3. Why many users call them "scams"
Players describe three recurring pain points: the economics favor the house because prize pools are split and fees mount; game interfaces and tournament mechanics can feel designed to frustrate or prolong play; and customer-service or payout friction fuels distrust (SlashGear tester's "money pit" experience; Trustpilot complaints; FinanceBuzz warnings about scammy practices) [5] [4] [6]. Where users repeatedly lose small buy-ins, the experience resembles gambling losses, which drives strong language like "scam" even when the platform technically pays winners [5] [4].
4. How reputable reviewers position these apps
Consumer-facing finance sites and reviewers strike a cautious middle ground: they list legitimate titles, note positive app-store ratings and verified payouts, and advise treating the games as risky entertainment rather than income streams (The Budget Diet and PennyHoover-style guides) [7] [8]. Several outlets explicitly say the games are "not scams" but emphasize that realistic earnings require deposits and that many players will lose money [7] [8] [9].
5. Hidden incentives and potential biases in coverage
Many reviews that praise specific apps also link to alternatives, discuss deposit strategies, or recommend apps in ways consistent with affiliate revenue models—readers should be alert that some positive coverage may be financially motivated (implicit in publication practices across finance review sites) [6] [1]. Conversely, disgruntled users on platforms like Trustpilot can amplify worst-case experiences, creating polarized impressions that don't capture the majority outcome [4].
6. Practical verdict and consumer advice
The clearest conclusion: these apps are not categorically scams but are high-risk, fee-laden platforms where the design favors the operators; winning real money is possible but uncommon and often requires depositing funds, accepting long withdrawal windows, and navigating opaque payout splits [1] [2] [6]. Before playing, verify payout methods and minimums, read terms and fee schedules, start with the smallest deposit, track withdrawal times in practice, and treat the activity as entertainment spending rather than reliable income [6] [8].