Zynga May Be Valued at $1 Billion Feeding Off Facebook Craze
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Awful. A company that uses sleazy monetization tactics (until someone called them out on it) and blatantly ripoffs games from competitors will be worth more than one of the most innovative game developers.
Mobwars > GTA?
I guess the valuation though reflects the business fundamentals of social vs console gaming.
i wonder how zynga's revenue is going to be hit when they stop running scammy ads... and if this IPO would even occur.
At debut Novembre Zynga's revenue from offers was ~33%. With each interview since Arrington broke news on the scam, that percentage has gone down. All 'according to Zynga.'
This also struck me. How is 65 million free users even comparable to selling 52.6 million consoles at $xxx a piece. It's obvious free games would attract more users much easier, but which would be more valuable to a purchasing company? (Not saying Nintendo will be bought, but you know).
And I may be wrong, but what intellectual capital does a company like this have? Anyone who buys it, is just buying the user base. And what about the future of the company? What would be the revenue 5 years later? How does a quantitative analyst factor this while calculating the worth of the company?
I thought that maybe I was just a typical unlucky player who would make such a claim. I feel less sure of that after seeing the "every horrible thing in the book" remark.
I think the sleazy tactic would be to hook new players onto the game by weighting the odds in their favor.
For those who care... what I saw was a lucky streak when I started playing. For my style of play, that meant good hands and good flops. After a few weeks, I started seeing that people were regularly getting sucked out on and losing to very rare hands on a frequent basis. Yes, the former can be blamed on the quality and aggression levels of Internet users playing without consequence (i.e. real money). I couldn't explain the latter.
I saw players call very high bets on the flop and turn and end up with runner-runner straights or flushes on the river. It felt like the game might be rewarding stupidity more often than any decent pseudo-random number generation would dictate. Again, this could just be because a higher number of stupid hands are played in their game than IRL but I think I accounted for the probabilities in my incredulity.
Most damning was that I played for about about 3 hours over a 48 hour period and saw a straight flush and 3 4-of-a-kinds. I've played 4 hours a week of "bar poker" (play for chips, not money) for 1 1/2 years and have seen 2 straight flushes and 2 4-of-a-kinds total that whole time at the real tables. They're (supposed to be) rare enough that I can recall each instance with clarity.
1) Real tables go a lot slower than online poker.
2) Relying on pre-flop premium hands is bad deep-stack no limit strategy. No one is going to pay you off big when you've just got top pair.
3) What would be the point of rigging Zynga poker? They have exactly one method through which they pay out (the prize for the Shootout tournament), and they fix the rate at which they pay out there.
4) You can always find a small number of users testifying to the occurrence of statistically-unlikely events. Compare with testing for ESP in the presence of random guessers: with a large pool, someone will get lucky.