Zynga pays small giant a fortune

Just saying Small Giant is not hurting

Well that’s unfortunate timing for the article to come out!

1 Like

they deserve it

#20 characters

1 Like

I was just thinking that Dan7

1 Like

Earn outs are very very common in the world of startups, acquisitions, and VC backed companies.

What is the issue here?

2 Likes

Also, considering their initial purchase was 700m on at total of a 52m VC raise, 122m is a small earn out.

Again. What is the problem.

all that money, and they can’t manage to let me pull Clarissa? Or I dunno, a few more scopes? Something? Food/Iron refills upon level up?

pfft.

3 Likes

Complainers gonna complain? Some folks expect to receive the world, if others are successful.

/Not saying you - some folks in general.

No complaints here. I just think its absolutely rotten timing. What with the “Rebalancing and all”

2 Likes

Zynga has posted revenue of USD$404m (£326m) for January-March 2020, an increase of 52% from the same period last year and a record for the company. In spite of this, the mobile developer-publisher posted a net loss of USD$104m (£83.9m) for the quarter, significantly higher than the USD$26m (£21m) loss the company forecasted in its previous guidance. Zynga states that the record revenue and high loss are interlinked, as it had to pay a combined USD$120m in earn-out considerations to Small Giant Games and Gram Games, which the company acquired in 2018 for initial sums of USD$560m (£452m) and USD$250m (£202m) respectively, following their strong performances through the quarter. Zynga’s advertising revenue also fell significantly through the quarter, down over 26% from Q4 2019 to USD$59m (£48m).

(https://www.thegamingeconomy.com/2020/05/07/nintendo-revenue-hits-9-94bn-zynga-posts-usd104m-loss-despite-record-revenue/)

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the earn out by external investors versus internal shares since SGG sold a substantial percentage of the company to venture capitalists.

FWIW, I play in this sandbox. There are a few common scenarios.

Generally VCs are first money out. So out of the initial sale price I would assume that the VCs got their money out and the remainder was split by those remaining with preferred and common stock. The buyout was likely further split by the founders, early employees, and possibly others still at the company in the form of bonuses.

Again, many ways that this can work. But this is a pretty common scenario.

I think the issue here is the sudden jump in extra portals and the fewer gained 4* ascension materials that are now more for purchase than earned. It would be one thing if there wasn’t a major drop off in loot. But the added portals and lack of ascension mats unless purchased has got many in the community unhappy.

1 Like

They did not decrease the availability of 4* mats. If anything with PoV it’s been increased, even for F2P. Not by a lot, but one more every two months. I even get 4* mats from MV once in a while.

Portals don’t affect me as F2P because I don’t spend to pull. And if I did, I’d likely also spend for the mats. So … what is the issue?

2 Likes

The OP might have been going the route of SGG releasing or trying to release significantly stronger heros since January to make bank.

Or that SGG is making bank and where are the 101 QOL fixes they should be done. Is it not possible or workable to higher additional staff? I’m not a computer programmer, but they cant throw 200-300k each at 10 people to work on that crap?

2 Likes

Yea you make bank when you bait and switch hotms. Hope next quarter sees steep decline.

Cookie Settings