Zynga loses $15.8M in Q2, nearly half its daily users year-over-year
polygon.com
polygon.com
This company has always been and always will be a pure scam. Period.
On the other hand, a lot of people have already cashed out and made bank on the scumminess, so who knows.
At what point do we stop with the one-upmanship and accept that we can feel bad for people on various levels?
However the competition is heating up quickly to nuclear fusion temperatures. Every useful app or silly game on every smart phone is effectively a direct competitor -- Zynga needs people obsessing on very certain games for hundreds of hours, enough time to punch in real dollars on the whim.
Furthermore, this is an inherently unsticky kind of niche. Every customer will need to be won over again in 12 months or less, as they tire of that one charming game.
The stock is going to crater...
Full agree with this statement. If you look at titles like Candy Crush, sure, they're doing amazing right now, pulling in huge numbers (users and revenue) - but in 3-6 months - they won't be around. Retention will switch over to the next 45th copy of Bejeweled.
It's actually a very interesting model. The same games are re-created by new "startup" companies every few months. 1/100 hits and becomes a Top-10 item in the app store. The game gets huge traction by leveraging FB's massive user base, company puts together obscene numbers showing engagement, in-app purchases, growth projections (which end up diving after a few Q's) and then go out and raise Series-A rounds.
What I CAN'T figure out is - are VCs really this dumb to invest in companies that won't be around in 12-18 months? Maybe they're not, maybe it's the VC model that's flawed. Invest in 100 companies @ $1.5-3M per and 1 will go public or get acquired and we'll make our money back. But this is an entirely different conversation.
If I have to hear one more idiot with an app or another 56th version of a similar service like Instagram say they're "changing the world" I might lose it. Ha!
It depends what they do with the success that determines their future, I'm pretty sure they're aware that Candy Crush is a fad, just a matter of exploiting it while working on the next thing.
They had an original idea, a great product, they kept releasing new additions to the product. They built a large business around it. They branded the product, they created merchandise, they never scummed their employees and took their early equity.
They're a good company.
They did well milking the idea for every penny, and I think they were a key driver of the casual gaming genre (along with Zynga and their Facebook gaming) but I think they were pretty lucky with a few key celebrity endorsements.
1) Aiming where the projectiles go is easy 2) Most projectiles use "powerups"
Which to me, make the games as different as say, Mario and Sonic.
Mattrick is now a Nasdaq CEO. Totally worth it to him.
We're looking at no more than four shrinking quarters after which Zynga will fold or transform through some transaction. Pincus gets to say it wasn't his fault.
They're sitting on $1.25 billion in cash. They could lose $50 million per quarter for 5 years and still just keep chugging along.
They're not short on problems, but they will not be folding for a very long time, and Mattrick will not be gone in less than 90 days.
Zynga's Free cash flow was ($14) million for the second quarter of 2013 compared to ($204) million for the second quarter of 2012.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zynga-reports-second-quarter-2...
Things crumble fast on Wall Street.
There is a profitable business in Zynga, as much as some people hate that. They need to downsize and make more targeted bets.
They need a good product. They don't have one. They probably won't have one since their entire company revolves around copying former titles (like the Sim games). I wonder what happened with the EA assault on Zynga?
EA and Zynga Settle The Ville -The Sims: Social Lawsuits: http://gamepolitics.com/2013/02/15/ea-and-zynga-settle-ville...
Breaking: EA and Zynga reach settlement in lawsuit surrounding The Ville: http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2013/02/15/breaking-ea-and-...
No, EA, you are not “standing up for the industry” by suing Zynga: http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2012/08/24/no-ea-you-are-no...
The Ville was obviously a graphical and mechanical rip-off of The Sims, with a thick helping of Zynga Sauce slathered on top.
Having worked on the original version of The Sims, and knowing a bunch of former Sims designers and developers who now or recently worked at Zynga, I thought that The Sims Social was itself, modulo the original Sims stuff at its core, an almost literal rip-off of the cliché "social game" mechanics that are the signature of Zynga's game, but that was EA's sweet and fitting revenge for Zynga ripping off theirs and everybody else's games. (But no, EA wasn't "standing up for the game industry", it was just a bully bullying back at another bully.)
So Zynga copied The Sims and added their own "stuff" on top, then they got mad when EA copied Zynga's own stuff back on top of The Sims to make it into a "social game". Tough shit, assholes! Really sucks when somebody does the same thing back to you that you did to them, doesn't it, huh? The judge must have had a big laugh at both their expenses.
I suppose it's a good thing that they settled out of court, so they didn't established any legal precedents that you can't copy generic game elements.
So if all The Sims Social was meant to do was to screw over Zynga the same way Zynga had been screwing over other companies, then it was a spectacular success, and a brilliant piece of performance art, and parroting all those clichéd design decisions was justified! But was that the best direction to take the Sims franchise in as a game...? Well that's a different question! ;)
Support.com, massive lawsuit for "computer checkup ads"
Tribe.net, The community that owns the "island of lost toys". Basically a relatively successful social network that went belly up for a number of reasons
and
Zynga, the red-headed stepchild of the Facebook platform.
So, IMHO, no one will remember Zynga the next time Pincus has a startup, just like no one remembers tribe or support.com.
This will change. Look at Kleiner - investment after investment = flop after flop. Cleantech. Ouya. What's next?
Institutional money, pension funds, high-net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds, etc. will all start realizing and cracking down on these idiotic investments left and right. It's like the eyeballs craze of the 90s. Have a site? 100,000 eyeballs a month? Shit, you're a $500M company. You'll make money somehow in the future, we believe in you.
Yeah, we remember what happened then.
Little on the IPO here: http://www.businessinsider.com/zynga-stock-price-valuation-2...
For example:
* Disney/Pixar now have two top free to play apps based on combining Temple Run with their existing IP. These games not only follow a proven winning formula, but they also piggy back on the movies marketing budgets to promote the games (to a much larger extent that Zynga could afford)
* Universal Pictures has cloned Temple Run Zynga style (but with much more original flair) to make their Despicable Me app game. Like Disney their massive film marketing budget drives the games success, and rather than users having to "warm up" to new characters, the lovable minions are already there for instant recognition/gratification.
* Rovio has made great strides making their original IP (Angry Birds) worthy of Disney level acclaim, but they've also heavily co-branded (via advertising and Angry Birds Star Wars) in order to increase profits.
Every startup needs to watch out for this one. Users are aquired in several different ways, 2 main ones are:
- Tricking users into your product or service through gimmicks, lies, or aggressive marketing.
- Earning users by solving their problem and selling them value.
Zynga did the former and users are getting sick of it. Other examples are infomercial products, they sell like crazy based on promises and gimmicks and fade away into oblivion in the mid and long term. Think back to all the things you've seen on TV (especially exercise products and makeup brands), how many of them are still around? Despite many of them being successful and collecting dust in millions of homes' basements, they fizzed out.
I personally download these games and play the shit out of them, but never ever give them money. It becomes a different aspect of the game -- sure, I have plenty of money to give you, but I don't think I should give it for something to speed up the experience -- I mean, you designed the experience, so it becomes a personal challenge until the game becomes boring -- oh, and I never mention it to anyone else, as to remove the word of mouth part.
I happily pay for good games that don't use this mechanic and tell my friends about how rad they are. It's how I speak with my wallet.
"It’s hard to celebrate a big company’s misfortune since it involves so many people’s jobs, but fuck Zynga and good riddance to their profit."
Mark Pincus is unlikely to get caught, but as the CEO of a publicly traded company, supported by Kleiner and others, he was a criminal, like Richard Nixon but on a smaller scale.
Personally, I'd like to see them all crushed, their offices burnt to the grown and sown with salt -- Zynga delinda est and all that.
As someone who has actually bought Zynga games, I could post you the back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth, email thread I had with their tech support over the most minor issue, but it wouldn't help anything. (Essentially there was a minor bug in a game between me and this other player but their only "solution" was to block the user for 3 days and then restart.)
Like Dextrose with their Aves engine.. that looked truly impressive then they sell out to Zynga and who knows what crapware their innovation is now powering.
Hopefully some of that sees the light of day again.
The model is fucked. But I agree with you.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/17/how-king-com-crushed-...
However, if you didn't time the buy-in just right, you would have bought at around $35 - $40 a share (if you bought either early or late), and today it trades at $43.
That's the difficulty with many analysis ideas - they work great in retrospect only, when you can see exactly when the low points are, and can believe "If I had bought on that day, I would have made a mint." But from day-to-day, determining "that day" is virtually impossible.
In general, though, it's not about "buying on news", it's "buying sinful industries in general, but particularly on bad news/dips" -- defense, oil/coal, alcohol, etc. The other model I've used which has been far more effectively (and less disgusting morally) is "buy products I know a lot about and really like, as long as the company itself doesn't have serious financial or leadership problems"; TSLA, MSA (they make the world's best body armor, which I loved in Iraq, Paraclete), various arms manufacturers, etc.
Interesting model; haven't ever thought about it like that.
Streaming with AirPlay, on the other hand, is a totally different story, especially with controller support in iOS7. It fully supports the scenarios you're talking about.
Them canceling those plans - and Mattrick saying they are 'resetting' and expect volatility to continue, makes me lose my faith. I think I'm going to get out of the stock.
I don't know much about Mattrick so maybe he is a turnaround specialist and what he did at EA and Microsoft was great and he will save the company - but the business they are in is a loser. And they don't appear to be interested in a pivot.
Sad day. I now agree with the sentiment that Zynga is a dead company.
Oh, irony.
And when real money is involved EVERYONE becomes a serious player.
I would probably hold the stock. Someone might buy them out for their talent, or whatever is left of it. I'm sure you're deep in the red, might not be the best idea to cash out.
It does suck though. Similar to how it probably feels to have your startup be acqhired. It's not a total loss - but it's definitely not what you were aiming for.