17 ms·
Zynga stock plummets below value of its cash and real estate
- mullingitover 14y agoAren't they something like 15% of FB's revenue, and FB is more like 85% of theirs? Seems like FB would just keep on screwing with their visibility on the site to drag their numbers down to the muck, then buy Zynga with change they find between their couch cushions.
- crugej 14y agoI have been waiting to see this company die and I hope the end is near. They may try and save it with virtual currency gambling as their next con on the human brain but it is inevitable.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- kitcar 14y ago... according to one analyst. Paraphrased from the article: J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth wrote (Zynga's) assets are worth $2.46 per share... In afternoon trading Friday, Zynga stock was at $2.35.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoZynga stock is trading 9.6% below book value.
- khuey 14y agoTotally reasonable thing to trade at if investors believe the company is destroying value instead of creating it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- SwearWord 14y agoBazynga
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sbierwagen 14y agosee also: http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/zynga-inc-znga-poker-chief-tired-of-gambling-and-exits-the-company/ http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/zynga-inc-znga-poker-chief-... Troubles seem to be following the struggling game maker, Zynga Inc (NASDAQ:ZNGA), this time now with the exit of Laurence “Lo” Toney, an executive who oversaw the company’s hugely popular online poker game. Tony’s exit was revealed via his LinkedIn profile, where he changed his current profession to “mentor at MuckerLab,” a Los Angeles startup accelerator, and lists Zynga Inc (NASDAQ:ZNGA) among his previous professions. [...] Tony now joins the list of top-level executives who left Zynga Inc (NASDAQ:ZNGA) in the past couple of months. In September, Chief technology officer Allan Leinwand and chief marketing and revenue officer Jeff Karp resigned, while in August, chief operating officer John Schappert and chief creative officer Mike Verdu left the company. Not only this, but the game maker also witnessed the exit of two vice presidents, Bill Mooney and Brian Birtwistle, at the end of August.
- benguild 14y agoDamn
- halis 14y agoSometimes this is a good opportunity to invest BUT in this case I would steer clear. I think their business model is questionable which brings into question their profitability. If they continue losing money, they could burn through their book value in no time.
- s_baby 14y agoCan someone explain to me why a company would be priced below its "fundamentals"?
- andreyon 14y agofundamentals are subject to change. What the market looks at is it's future value. Right now, Zynga's future value is low and dark
- nicholas73 14y agoCommonly, in addition to cash burn, a company's assets are a) overstated b) will not fetch fair market value in a firesale c) have many additional costs during the bankruptcy process. In addition, large funds cannot sell their shares instantly, therefore will depress value below net assets, in effect paying a premium to get out of the stock.
- potatolicious 14y agoThey may have $X of cash or close-to-cash assets, but the company also isn't shutting down tomorrow and liquidating. They will continue to spend into the foreseeable future, making its probably future value something less than $X. Basically, the future value of Zynga's games is worth less than the future revenue, creating an expected net value decrease.
- moocow01 14y agoThe expectation is that it will continually lose money down to the point of the valuation. For example, say in an imaginary world I have a piece of real estate and its worth 500k right now but its pretty much assumed that because of X, Y and Z real estate in the area is going down on average 20%. Because of that if you are the buyer you'd argue that a fair price to buy the house is actually 400k. Same thing with companies - on average, investors think Zynga will be a loser down to the point of its current stock price.
- fleitz 14y agoThe price of a stock as with any other price merely reflects supply and demand and not it's intrinsic value which is generally unknowable. If you have an opportunity expected to double your money then it makes sense to sell an asset below 'asset value' to avoid taking on missed opportunity costs. Example: You have $1mm in Zynga stock @ $2.35, and no cash on hand. You expect the stock to trade at $2.85 in 1 year. You have the opportunity to buy APPL and expect AAPL to double in 1 year. The EV of AAPL is $2 mm The EV of Zynga is $1.21 mm Therefore excluding transaction costs it's the smart play to sell Zynga stock for any price above $1.87. Since you've probably lost heavily on Zynga you can use the tax losses from a sale to offset the gains from the APPL profit, where as holding Zynga for the EV would merely result in a reduced tax loss.
- andreyon 14y agothey said the same with Nokia about valuation. They were saying only it's patents are worth 7 B ... but at some point all NOK was valued at 6.1 B . It has recovered since, but the idea is that you can burn your cash real quickly if you're not earning new income
- outside1234 14y agowho could have seen this coming? :)
- sbashyal 14y agoI believe that those who cared about company values did see this coming. See this one comment in Hacker News about a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3225688 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3225688
- outside1234 14y agoyeah, sorry, behind the sarcasm that was my point.
- MartinCron 14y agoFor years I argued with people at companies who wanted to be more like Zynga while I was saying that it was an unsustainable bubble. Vindication is.. kind of lonely and sad, actually.
- dfc 14y agoWhy is there no discussion of obligations? A company could have a lot of cash and real estate, but debt obligations could wipe out a ton of that value. I realize the discussion is about Zynga's deteriorating future but it seems that in order to draw any conclusioons from the stock price being lower than cash+real-estate a discussion of obligations is required.
- danilocampos 14y agoSo heartbreaking. The front-line folks at Zynga were worked to the bone, by so many insider accounts. Now all the stock they were counting on has had most of its value evaporate. But that's life, right? Counting on equity is, simply, a gamble. Except when you've rigged the table, as Pincus and his cronies have. http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/10/05/zynga-keeps-crashing-but-mark-pincus-is-having-a-great-year/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/10/05/zynga-kee... They got to play by different rules than the folks whose hard work got them to IPO. Instead of being subject to lockup, like the rest of Zynga, they got to cash out early, before the true state of their company was fully appreciated by the market. So what's the lesson? Don't trust people willing to fuck people over to make a buck. You're not special. If there's a buck in it, you'll get fucked too. http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...
- reitzensteinm 14y agoIs it really heartbreaking that some Silicon Valley developers, one of the highest paid professions in one of the highest paid areas of the world, only made a decent salary instead of a fantastic total compensation package? It's unfortunate, sure. And quite a few parts of the Zynga story are downright distasteful, especially the options clawback last year. But let's not get hyperbolic - they played the startup lottery hoping to get rich, and lost.
- danilocampos 14y agoI think that's easy for you to say. But I bet it really, really hurts for the many folks who genuinely worked their asses off to see Zynga succeed. You put in that kind of effort only to watch your boss get rich while you get screwed? You take Pincus and company, tie their fates to that of the employees, and everyone loses together? Fine, whatever. Like you said, they played the lottery. But the mismatch of fates is, to me, what makes this story pretty damn sad.
- coloneltcb 14y agoRight, but again, heartbreaking is hyperbolic. Heartbreaking is when you are a coal miner and you have the mine collapse on you and you die like a trapped rat. This is just a raw deal.
- sbashyal 14y agoStock price plummeting below asset value indicates that investors believe that Zynga is now in the business of burning money instead of making money.
- benguild 14y agoDidn't they try to ease stock away from those who owned it pre-IPO? How has that panned out now? … Was it converted to less valuable cash at the time, or is the cash more valuable now? (or was it that they got nothing in exchange for losing the stock)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- adamjernst 14y agoThey control their cash and assets. This indicates that investors believe Zynga will use up their assets without producing any profit from them—that is, their RoE is negative.
- patrickgzill 14y agoYou would be paying less than book value (value of copmany divided by number of shares), true. However, if they lose money, then the book value will drop some more. Only if the company failed utterly and then returned the money to the shareholders (not likely) would it be "safe" to focus on book value.
- philwelch 14y agoSo when do the corporate raiders come to perform a hostile takeover and liquidate Zynga for the cash and real estate?
- tayl0r 14y agoI don't think this works with Zynga since Pincus's shares have so much extra voting power.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoNot exactly the way it would work, basically the way things are valued you can't necessarily get that much money for them. In the ideal world there would be a business there too. Now all of this is moot if Zynga is making enough money to pay the bills, doesn't matter what their stock price is if they don't have to sell stock to raise money. So the thing to look at is when their obligations exceed their assets, that is when they are 'upside down' in the lingo. Very hard to recover from that because you can't even borrow money temporarily when that happens, you have to save money, then use the money you saved to do the thing you wanted to do, rinse and repeat and that removes your ability to react quickly.
- _delirium 14y agoI don't think it's undervalued by enough for that to work, yet. According to this report, the stock is currently priced 9.5% below book value, but in a hostile takeover the acquirer typically needs to pay a significant premium over current share price, in the range of 10-25%, in order to rapidly acquire a bunch of shares.
- jstanderfer 14y agoZynga is structured such that Mark Pincus has a majority of the voting shares (50.15% to be exact). This means he cannot be fired nor can any takeover occur without his consent.
- mratzloff 14y agoAnd he's already cashed out a significant portion of his stock, so he has no personal motivation to ever sell.
- AlexMuir 14y agoShould FB buy them? Much of Zynga's trouble has been that their interests and Facebook's didn't align. My first thought was "Why bother? FB can just wait and pick up the good staff in the wind down." But the exact opposite of that logic has led to acquihires.
- esusatyo 14y agoI don't think Facebook is much interested in gaming. If anything they'd buy another social network company.
- MartinCron 14y agoI think that Facebook gets that the current batch of skinner-box games have a limited lifespan as users (and Facebook itself) build up their immunities to them.
- bigohms 14y agoI have held Zynga throughout the year. The extent of leadership fail here is unprecedented. n number of remediation tactics should have taken hold early to prevent where we are now. Here is a copy of my e-mail to Pincus (still gone unanswered): "Mark - Can we have a man-to-man? Seriously, please explain to me, a small shareholder in Zynga, exactly what the fuck you have been doing with my investment? Clearly, the answer is not building value in any meaningful way. Any third year entrepreneur will have trouble seeing your performance this year amounting to anything other than a collected check, a leveraged office, a leased plane ($3K a wet flight hour?!? What is that a fucking citation X?!?) and an overpaid security team. If the plan is to ride this thing to the nines, let me know so that I can pull out and forget any thoughts of a really well integrated ecosystem of gaming. BTW: If you see the OMGPOP/Draw Something team, tell them to get the fuck off of their asses (if they're still around) and do something about long-tail gamification model if they want to do something about user retention. That's all, k thx bye drops mic."
- unoti 14y agoAt least this letter gives some insight into why there's a highly paid security team.
- sliverstorm 14y ago(still gone unanswered) I hope you are not actually surprised. You've read the email you wrote, right? I know I wouldn't have bothered to answer an email like that.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- moot 14y agoThis reads like most of the e-mail I get, and I don't even run a publicly traded company!
- thaumaturgy 14y agoHah. I'm sure that's got nothing to do with what you're most famous for.
- DanBlake 14y agoArticle does not mention debt- Does Zynga have any? If so, it explains some of this.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mey 14y agoI expect investors are expecting lawsuits or other losses in the near term that could easily reduce their assets.
- 001sky 14y agoThis is a good question. There is somethin like $600MM of ST liabilities, though vs $1.2B of cash & equivalents (/securities). Not sure what that is, but that is (potentially) a big deal. Although it seems to be on the BS QoQ http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ZNGA&fstype=ii http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ZNGA&fstype=ii LT Debt = $100MM, so not as significant an issue.
- rjtavares 14y agoThose $600MM are detailed in their Quarterly report: -$450MM are deferred revenues (i.e., people bought things in their games but they don't recognize everything as revenue right away, a common procedure with online video games). -$40MM are customer deposits, which according to them "represent amounts received for unredeemed game cards as well as advanced payments from various customers." -$120MM are things like transaction taxes, compensation related liabilities and accounts payable. So, it's not really debt, just working capital.
- 001sky 14y ago- Interesting note. To the tune of $450, though, these constant amount in deferred revs is reasonably large source of working capital/liquidity @ ~5x their bank line. But valuation of the type implied in the headline should (most likely) be done on some concept of net cash, I would think. It cost you money to liquidate the assets before you get your hands on the cash. Gross margin less SGA is only 30% of revenues, so maybe only $300mm-ish needs to be shaved off the cash balance from deferred revs. These liabilities must be incurred to realize the future revenues wigthout refunding back the pre-pays, good 1st approximation. So, $1.0 to 1.1B is closer to the floor value. They are at $1.9B market cap a5 $2.50, so almost 2.0x coverage of this right now. (options, etc might swing this a bit).
- beatpanda 14y agoAwesome. Let them collapse, and may a hundred new and better companies bloom in the exodus.
- groby_b 14y agoYep. And maybe a few hundred devs will struggle to pay their mortgage. Yes, Zynga has many issues. But before we get all cold-hearted and rejoice at the wonderful invisible hand that will correct all, can we for a moment remember that it's going to affect mostly the people in the trenches? Who often had little to no say in the outcome?
- hkmurakami 14y agoThe idea of getting into a mortgage based on non-vested or non-lockup-expired stock options reminds me of Japanese professionals getting into mortgages based on their salary + overtime pay (overtime was effectively eliminated during and after the financial crisis, which left these people unable to meet their monthly mortgage payments).
- rationalbeats 14y agoYour comment is so isolated from the real world, and the very fundamentals of humanity, that I have to wonder how old you are and if you even have a girlfriend. Let alone kids. The comment you wrote is something I would have written 17 years ago on a Prodigy bulletin board forum after I just finished reading some selected essays of Ayn Rand.
- goodcanadian 14y agoOK, I have done a bit of math: Book value (all assets - all liabilities): $2.46 per share Book value less expected write off of $90M: $2.34 Book value less all intangibles: $2.01 Current Assets (essentially cash) less all liabilities: 0.78 Current market value: $2.35 So, the market is valuing it at exactly next quarter's expected book value. This means that they still believe there is some value in the intangibles (I don't) or the business (I don't). For giggles, here are the some numbers for Research in Motion. BV: $18.15 per share BV less intangibles: 11.81 Current assets less all liabilities: 6.22 Market value: 7.76
- asdf333 14y agoI also agree it should be at current assets as well. no one should really count on the intangibles (particularly not goodwill) What is the "short term investments" line item on the balance sheet under current assets? Are those corporate bonds or other highly liquid assets?
- goodcanadian 14y agoI don't know if I would go as low as net-net (current assets less all liabilities). The building is probably worth approximately what they paid for it. There is probably some furniture and computers and things that may or may not be worth their carrying value (depreciation is supposed to account for the decline in resale value). It is always a bit sad when a company is worth less than the sum of its parts. I don't think Zynga is quite there, yet, but I don't think it is worth very much unless and until they sit down and learn how to run a business. I won't be investing in it. You are correct that short term investments would be stocks or bonds or term deposits or any other highly liquid assets. Generally, they are as good as cash.
- steve8918 14y agoYou don't perceive value the business? They still generate $300M in revenues per quarter. That sounds more like an emotional valuation rather than an objective valuation.
- 14y ago
- aaronmarks 14y agoDoes this mean they're undervalued and it's a good time to buy Zynga?
- supersaiyan 14y agothere expected to have a low quarter coming up, the price will most likely drop then, but they're mau has been fairly consistent so it might not be too bad
- state 14y agoCould someone who didn't see this coming please explain to me how there was another outcome for this company? I'm being completely serious. When I read headlines like this I just assume this happened at least nine months ago. I'd like to hear some reasoned defense of how this company was going to survive.
- pbreit 14y agoWell, it makes a _ton_ of money ($1.3b ttm revs). Is, by far, the leading web-based/social gaming company. Is an excellent acquisition target. Has, by far, the most DAUs/MAUs. Is in an easy-to-monetize industry. Would be in the best position to take advantage of relaxed gambling laws. And on and on. What don't you get?
- wilfra 14y ago"Could someone who didn't see this coming please explain to me...how this company was going to survive" How were they going to survive? They aren't dead. Not even close. Pincus has the same kind of control over Zynga that Zuckerberg has over Facebook, and he's got a mountain of cash in the bank. That means nobody can make him do anything and he has a very long time to get his house in order. All they would have to do to make Wall Street happy now is lay-off a whole bunch of people and start making 20% profit. The stock would go to $10+ instantly. That's the easy way out, not planning for the long run. Not planning for growth. Zynga is in a great position for real-money gaming, as just one possible avenue for future growth. The US government is taking longer than expected to regulate that industry but they will get around to it. Zynga has been public for less than a year and they've got many years of runway left even if things don't improve. People need to slow down on thinking and claiming they are done.
- napillo 14y agoSo, what you are saying is, I should buy all of Zynga's stock, lay everyone off, close up shop and sell all it's real estate, and keep the cash for myself.
- VSerge 14y agoIt is baffling that analysts can essentially divide their guidance by 2 overnight. With such "guidance", it's easy for small investors to get fleeced. And with everyone in the industry gloating about how we saw it coming, it's only going to make us all look a little less trustworthy. It's a shame too, because many called out Zynga's business model as unsustainable, even though that didn't get much coverage in the financial or mainstream press.
- rajpaul 14y ago>It is baffling that analysts can essentially divide their guidance by 2 overnight. Maybe we should ask for a refund from the analysts? But seriously, it's free advice, we are getting what we pay for.
- timpeterson 14y agofitting fate for the CEO, Mark Pincus, whose been quoted as saying he "doesn't want to fucking innovate. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." quora discussion on this: http://b.qr.ae/hFgaYd http://b.qr.ae/hFgaYd
- erichocean 14y agoPeter Thiel discussed the underlying worldview for why people think and act like Pincus at his startup class, which Blake Masters wrote up here: http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-13-notes-essay http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels... Worth a read. I think Pincus' overall approach is actually dominant right now in tech, not an outlier. Most people just aren't so crude about discussing it.
- trhtrsh 14y agoWhere is the mention of Pincus or Zynga? I couldn't find it.
- trhtrsh 14y agoMarc Pincus already sold enough shares to get his FU money.
- lsteam 14y agothis is really sad
- xenen 14y agoI really really hope that results like this will serve as a wake-up call to the community that is the valley. We've gone from creating microchips, putting a PC on every desk, opening up and connecting the web to the whole world with pioneers and visionaries, to nowadays creating low-quality browser games which are used to scam users out of private information/money led by ex-wall-street banker deploying sweatshop-like environments, and stealing stock back from employees while scamming public investors at the same time. Allowing things like this to happen, accepting that this kind of behavior is okay and enabling these kinds of characters to thrive is exactly why the valley has become so frothy. The transformation of Silicon Valley into Hollywood, where anyone with a big enough mouth and large enough ego can thrive is nearly complete. But I'll sure fight tooth and nail until the day I get squeezed out of this place - voting with my dollars and my labor, and a small but convinced voice in what is right and what is wrong.
- tzs 14y agoI'm curious. It's been a long time since I visited San Francisco, so maybe things have massively changed, but I recall that it used to have things like coffee shops, restaurants, fast food places, bookstores, groceries, movie theaters, and all the other kinds of things you'll find in pretty much any city in the US. These places employed baristas, waiters, bus boys, burger flippers, sales clerks, stock boys, and such. Such people typically work fixed shifts, and so unlike many developers have time to find people to start families with and have children. Based on some of the comments here, it would seem that getting by on just a developer's salary in San Francisco is near impossible--you have to have stock money to keep you afloat. So how come waiters, sales clerks, etc., can work in San Francisco and make ends meet for not only themselves for for a family, but single developers making more than the combined income of that entire working class family cannot? One comment mentioned that the developers might have student loans to pay off, but that's countered by the working class family might have to pay a lot to add their kids to their health insurance. Same question for New York, and any other place where people consider $100k/year too low to be a living wage for a programmer.
- johnpowell 14y agoThe people at Burger King spend two hours getting to work on public transportation and two hours getting back home. And you have six people in a two bedroom apartment.
- doomlaser 14y agoA lot of lower wage people commute from a distance to work those jobs. There have been articles about this phenomenon for years: http://peninsulapress.com/2012/08/28/low-wage-jobs-drive-silicon-valley-employment-growth-forcing-more-workers-into-long-commutes/ http://peninsulapress.com/2012/08/28/low-wage-jobs-drive-sil...
- netcan 14y agoYou are probably technically correct, but missing the point of the parent comment. The point is that this thread seems to see developers as the little guy getting screwed by circumstances & The Powerful while from a different (more "average") perspective these are relatively well off people that earned very well complaining that they didn't do outrageously well. It's good to keep in mind that the world doesn't owe you much. Where you are would be a massive victory for many. Where you started is where many work their whole lives to get closer to. Perspective plays trick on us. We think where we are is normal, slightly above us is where we ought to be.
- zynga_employee 14y agoI read HN all the time, but I have never commented before. I am a (relatively new) Zynga employee and I wanted to add my thoughts. Personally, I am stil very happy to be working at Zynga. I enjoy my work and my team, and I am compensated very well. Also, all of the benefits from working at Zynga (the food, the atmosphere, the very good health benefits, etc.) are still available. The only negative I see is that this job might not last for more than a year, and my stock isn't worth very much. As for everyone hating all of the Zynga employees: everyone I have met and whom I have worked with in my two months at Zynga has been very smart and very nice and incredibly fun to work with. I don't understand why people on Reddit and HN love to demonize the employees of Zynga. I would feel very sad if my friends or I were to be laid off.
- MartinCron 14y agothis job might not last for more than a year That statement is pretty much true for everyone everywhere. People like to pretend that it isn't, but people like to pretend lots of things that give them comfort.
- languagehacker 14y agoWell put. It's good to hear you're enjoying your time, and tempering it with some pragmatism probably helps a lot. I'd rather be working for a well-known company in a bit of trouble than one in trouble for fostering a hostile work environment.
- lotharbot 14y ago> " I don't understand why people on Reddit and HN love to demonize the employees of Zynga." I apologize if I give offense while attempting to shed some light on why people have a problem with your company (and those who choose to work there). It's difficult to be honest about this question without coming across as mean, but I will try. 1) wholesale copying other companies' games (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Fin... for a legal complaint and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4335287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4335287 for discussion.) From that thread: "they must realize that every day they go to work and rip off someone's original work." It's hard to respect someone who knowingly makes their living this way. 2) The game mechanics of Zynga games often hinge on what might be viewed as "bad" use of psychology -- manipulative, addictive, and in a sense abusive of the friends functionality of facebook. It's hard to respect someone who knowingly treats people so callously. 3) Common opinion is that the games themselves range from mildly awful to completely terrible, and are successful almost entirely due to the "bad" psychology above. It's easy to respect someone like notch, who got rich making an awesome game. It's hard to respect people like Pincus, who got rich by making games that are fundamentally lame. Again, no offense meant to you or your friends. Maybe you're on a team that doesn't do any of the above bad stuff. But the parts of Zynga most of us are familiar with do all of that bad stuff. I hope this helps clarify why you might see so much hate directed that way.
- seivan 14y agoDevelopers and Designers getting screwed over by the business monkeys and other scum... as usual. Further fuelling my hate for non-creative garbage.
- dasil003 14y agoIt's unfortunate that you cherry-pick Zynga as representatives of "non-creatives".
- bookworm_ 14y agoWho cares about unsophisticated investors who buy at the IPO or employees, or long-term stability? This company was a short term deal like many others in the web startup space. Hype worked. Virtual goods? It makes me laugh everytine I say it. Pincus and other investors made heaps of cash from this, no doubt. Mission accomplished. Call it sa success. Time to close up shop and on to the next one. Facebook is much the same way. Some people have made fortunes. Who cares about public investors, Wall Street and employees? They'll survive. It's just business.
- tatsuke95 14y agoYou realize that capitalism can't function when people keep stealing capital, right?
- shimsham 14y ago"We're addressing these near-term challenges by targeted cost reductions and focusing our new game pipeline to reflect our strategic priorities." Methinks someone has been raiding that bingo variant for phrases.
- bad_user 14y agoIt's some kind of poetic justice that Zynga before the IPO was compared to game makers that have historically produced kickass games, like Blizzard.
- kellybrooke 14y agoAre they renting any co-working space? Heard the offices are nice.
- coolio73 14y agoIf Mark planned all along to just cash himself out and f everyone else over that would explain the $1.4M ZNGA spends a year on his personal security (an extremely outsize sum for the size of organization he runs) http://blog.games.com/2012/04/11/zynga-ceo-mark-pincus-1-million-security/ http://blog.games.com/2012/04/11/zynga-ceo-mark-pincus-1-mil...
- deletecode 14y agotest post, please ignore