While Rovio is not currently seeking a buyout, the company's VP of franchise development Ville Heijari says the Finland studio could be worth somewhere "north of Popcap" and its recent $750 million purchase by EA.
In an interview with Eurogamer, Heijari said the Angry Birds maker has been approached many times about potential buyouts, but has preferred to focus on "growing this company and moving into different areas of business beyond games."
While Heijari admitted that every company has its price, he said Rovio has "set the bar pretty high from early on," a move that has led to no "really relevant discussion of whether somebody is going to buy us."
If it was to get bought, though, Heijari said Rovio's value could be "somewhere, I dunno, maybe north of PopCap."
In the interview, Heijari also fought back against the idea that Rovio is overly dependent on a single game, pointing out that the Angry Birds series has evolved through the Seasons and Rio releases and stressing "a lot of different stuff in the pipepine."
He also disputed the idea that high market valuations for companies like Popcap and Zynga are the result of a bubble mentality in the mobile/social/casual game spaces.
"I dunno, if the price is right for EA, then it must be right!" he laughed. "These kinds of price tags just go to show that the value is also perceived."
In March, Rovio chairman Kaj Hed said the company was aiming for a U.S. stock IPO sometime in the next five years.
*shrug* So the owner of a company feels his company is worth more than anyone wants to offer him for it. Great. I declare I won't sell this rock for less than 750M. Magic!
In all seriousness, I would not equate Angry Birds to the large volume of releases of Popcap, with its refined portfolio. Good for Rovio if they later accomplish this, but in the meantime, I know I can at least enjoy a good number of Popcap games. I have yet to hear the same of Angry Birds from any non-casual player.
Also, their hit was a clone of an existing game idea/genre (i.e. Crush the Castle et al), and the core mechanic is almost entirely based on someone else's engineering work (i.e. Box2D). They delivered on the concept well, but this comes off as extremely arrogant considering they have yet to have their own hit with a truly original concept.
Popcap has a long term track record, is well diversified, has footholds in China and Korea, a retail presence, console publishing, etc. On top of that, a long list of great games with well-liked IP (Bejewelled, Bookworm, PvZ, Peggle, etc, etc)
There is a potential parallel here between Angry Birds and Germany's Moorhund franchise. Phenomedia went IPO on a single hit IP (they had a couple small IPs that never matched the success) and eventually the market tired of Moorhund after it was overexposed. I would recommend Rovio read up on that and try to avoid the potential pitfalls. Good luck to you guys.
I could just say ditto to Nick and Joey and be done, but the tone of Ville's comments just kind of bothered me. PopCap captured a unique and lucrative market with creative ideas and addictive gameplay numerous times.
Rovio's got a good hit in Angry Birds for the casual market, especially considering the media blitz that every single cell phone company has going for the game, but they have yet to prove that they're anything but a one-hit wonder.
And no, adding new colors or a new bird and naming it "Seasons" or "Rio" doesn't count.
PopCap is very 2001 though ... Angry Birds is Rovio's Bejeweled but it's many times more successful. With the visibility that Rovio has right now, I agree with the CEO. Angry Birds is on t-shirts in touristy beach shops, the subject of bits on local radio shows, the central selling point on several new devices' commercials and more. New Toy sold for 50 million on 12 million users (based almost solely on one game). Rovio has 20X that many users putting them north of a billion as he stated. If they manage the brand correctly there's really no end. Angry Birds is a much more flexible and ubiquitous IP than anything PopCap has. It might as well be Star Wars or Super Mario Bros.
How is PopCap very 2001? Peggle and Plants vs Zombies have been massive hits, and their properties are MUCH more extendable into cross media, if they wanted, because they have more than one thing!
I disagree that the properties are more extendable. I think their properties are simply games. Angry Birds is a phenomenon with potential well outside the gaming world. Angry Birds is a brand. We're not going to see a Bejeweled cartoon or plush toys (let alone funny YouTube parodies). Also, I don't know how many downloads Bejeweled had over the last decade+ but Angry Birds is definitely more popular now. Bejeweled is a remnant from the casual gaming world. It had its time as did PopCap. Plants Vs. Zombies was cool but the appeal is much more limited than Angry Birds. PopCap is selling out now while the getting is good. If they really thought they had a chance against the Farmvilles and Angry Birds of the new social/mobile world they wouldn't have sold. This sale is PopCap capitalizing on the last decade. I'm much more interested in the next decade and I think Angry Birds has legs.
I do not see the potential of Angry Birds going anywhere outside the mobile market and the couple "network" version it has. Yes, they made a store with a lot of made in China toys but so did Popcap with PvZ (everything you mentioned included).
I keep hearing about this supposedly Angry Bird movie but frankly, I haven't seen much coming from Rovio beside an HEAVY dose of marketing and ridiculous public statements. "Action speak louder than words young Beowulf", give us the proof that Rovio can actually do something more than spending marketing bucks and dream out loud.
It isn't with their current creative achievements that I will believe in this so over-worshiped potential.
Now let's compare.
Popcap has:
- strong IPs (multiple)
- a long decade of repetitive success.
- a strong team capable of producing very highly creative and qualitative products.
- social network framework.
Rovio has:
- one IP.
- one success after repetitive failure (yes, Rovio was supposedly dying before Angry Birds).
- No real creative and engineering strength proven.
- Good production quality on a small size project.
- a very very big mouth when it comes to talk about their future.
I'd invest my money on Popcap without a thought if given the choice.
PopCap has no where near the buzz that Angry Birds has. Trying to say that Plants Vs. Zombies is in the same league because PopCap tried to do toys (which I haven't seen) is simply inaccurate. Angry Birds has invaded all levels of pop culture. PopCap's good no doubt but Rovio has succeeded in creating the super rare but constantly sought after "universal ip". Kids love it, adults love it, men and women alike. Also, the characters aren't limited to one game mechanic (a la Mario).
I think they have every right to make statements like they did. Also, I think it's in poor taste to insinuate that their team is somehow less than capable because Angry Birds is their first smash hit. The fact that they were able to pull off 52 games prior to this one is a testament to their drive and capacity for hard work. Calling their work "repetitive failure" is hitting below the belt and simply not true.
The only difference I see is that PopCap got lucky on their first game. Would that team have had the same staying power if they didn't hit a home run early on? PopCap is a brand originally built on a one hit wonder, Angry Birds is a brand built through years of hard work finally culminating in a "one hit wonder".
That'd be like saying Zynga should be worth more than Facebook because they are currently more profitable...
I'd really like to see the numbers for both companies in 2010 and 2011 along with their growth. I think you'd likely see deterioration in PopCap or at least decelerating growth. On the other hand you'd see exponential growth in Rovio.
I think you should have a look at the Plant vs Zombies phenomenon in China and Asia. The success is outstanding and yes, there are a lot of players there. They even made arcade booths that play PvZ.
Then, do not misunderstand what i said. I'm simply talking about statements you could read all over specialized websites at the beginning of the Angry Birds success. It was stating that Angry Birds was Rovio's last attempt before shutting down activities. Like it or not, this statement only proves that the previous 52 products weren't generating revenues. That's a lot of attempts.
Popcap has been the luckiest company on earth if I listen to you. The truth is, they takes the time to make things right. They have talented people and they give the time to make their games fun as well as complete experiences. That's no luck. EA and Zynga understood this.
I think they were one of the luckiest companies in history with Bejeweled and I'm sure they would agree. The rest was skillful but they had the resources to do what they wanted.
Don't misunderstand me, PopCap was probably a good deal at what EA paid. They're a great company. I just see Angry Birds as a more lucrative property. If I had to manage one brand or the other I'd take Angry Birds. I see more potential in it and wanted to offer a counter view to all the naysayers.
I kind of get the feeling what he said is being taken out of context. To me it sounds more like he is saying he wouldn't sell Rovio unless someone offered more than EA offered PopCap.
I believe the whole sentence was: "But the valuation from our point of view is somewhere, I dunno, maybe north of PopCap."
So I think he meant exactly this: "in their point of view" they do like in my point of view, I'm the best designer the world has ever seen. A personal point of view doesn't make a statement true ;-)
So no, I'm certainly not the best designer the world has every seen sadly and Rovio certainly doesn't worth anything close to the value of Popcap.
Popcap: a well-established company with a string of proven hits
Rovio: a relatively new company with a single hit
To be fair, Rovio could well come up with a good successor to Angry Birds, and Popcap's next release could be a complete flop. Then too, Rovio is doing it's best to extract as much money as possible from Angry Birds - everything from new level packs to merchandise, media tie-ins and spin-offs.
But fundamentally, the popularity of Angry Birds time will fade away, much as has happened (to a greater or lesser degree) with Lemmings, Pokemon, Creatures, Tamagotchi, Yu-Gi-Oh and all the other fads which have risen and fallen in the past. And at the moment, there's no proof that Rovio has the capability to produce a new IP. Whereas Popcap has produced successful game after game: they may not all have reached the heady heights of Bejewelled and Plants vs Zombies, but they've all paid their own way.
So given the choice, which would you pick as a long-term investment?
If Pokemon is a fad, then it's an extremely long lived one - the most recent release in the series has sold over 11 million copies worldwide.
I agree with the general sentiment though - Popcap has had several huge hits with a variety of IPs and is a relatively safe bet. Rovio has had one huge hit and who knows if they'll be able to continue that success once that hit starts to die down in popularity.
In all seriousness, I would not equate Angry Birds to the large volume of releases of Popcap, with its refined portfolio. Good for Rovio if they later accomplish this, but in the meantime, I know I can at least enjoy a good number of Popcap games. I have yet to hear the same of Angry Birds from any non-casual player.
Zynga falls into a whole other category here ...
Popcap has a long history of delivering incredible titles and revolutionizing the casual gaming space. They didn't just create one hit game.
Totally respect what Rovio has accomplished, but I just don't see them in the same league. Sorry guys!
Like Zuma which is more or less a reskinned Puzzle Loop.
But, overall yes Rovio is no PopCap.
Popcap has a long term track record, is well diversified, has footholds in China and Korea, a retail presence, console publishing, etc. On top of that, a long list of great games with well-liked IP (Bejewelled, Bookworm, PvZ, Peggle, etc, etc)
There's really no comparison.
Rovio's got a good hit in Angry Birds for the casual market, especially considering the media blitz that every single cell phone company has going for the game, but they have yet to prove that they're anything but a one-hit wonder.
And no, adding new colors or a new bird and naming it "Seasons" or "Rio" doesn't count.
I keep hearing about this supposedly Angry Bird movie but frankly, I haven't seen much coming from Rovio beside an HEAVY dose of marketing and ridiculous public statements. "Action speak louder than words young Beowulf", give us the proof that Rovio can actually do something more than spending marketing bucks and dream out loud.
It isn't with their current creative achievements that I will believe in this so over-worshiped potential.
Now let's compare.
Popcap has:
- strong IPs (multiple)
- a long decade of repetitive success.
- a strong team capable of producing very highly creative and qualitative products.
- social network framework.
Rovio has:
- one IP.
- one success after repetitive failure (yes, Rovio was supposedly dying before Angry Birds).
- No real creative and engineering strength proven.
- Good production quality on a small size project.
- a very very big mouth when it comes to talk about their future.
I'd invest my money on Popcap without a thought if given the choice.
I think they have every right to make statements like they did. Also, I think it's in poor taste to insinuate that their team is somehow less than capable because Angry Birds is their first smash hit. The fact that they were able to pull off 52 games prior to this one is a testament to their drive and capacity for hard work. Calling their work "repetitive failure" is hitting below the belt and simply not true.
The only difference I see is that PopCap got lucky on their first game. Would that team have had the same staying power if they didn't hit a home run early on? PopCap is a brand originally built on a one hit wonder, Angry Birds is a brand built through years of hard work finally culminating in a "one hit wonder".
I'd really like to see the numbers for both companies in 2010 and 2011 along with their growth. I think you'd likely see deterioration in PopCap or at least decelerating growth. On the other hand you'd see exponential growth in Rovio.
Then, do not misunderstand what i said. I'm simply talking about statements you could read all over specialized websites at the beginning of the Angry Birds success. It was stating that Angry Birds was Rovio's last attempt before shutting down activities. Like it or not, this statement only proves that the previous 52 products weren't generating revenues. That's a lot of attempts.
Popcap has been the luckiest company on earth if I listen to you. The truth is, they takes the time to make things right. They have talented people and they give the time to make their games fun as well as complete experiences. That's no luck. EA and Zynga understood this.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H01W20100618?irpc=932
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/01/zynga-financials/
I stand corrected.
Don't misunderstand me, PopCap was probably a good deal at what EA paid. They're a great company. I just see Angry Birds as a more lucrative property. If I had to manage one brand or the other I'd take Angry Birds. I see more potential in it and wanted to offer a counter view to all the naysayers.
So I think he meant exactly this: "in their point of view" they do like in my point of view, I'm the best designer the world has ever seen. A personal point of view doesn't make a statement true ;-)
So no, I'm certainly not the best designer the world has every seen sadly and Rovio certainly doesn't worth anything close to the value of Popcap.
Rovio: a relatively new company with a single hit
To be fair, Rovio could well come up with a good successor to Angry Birds, and Popcap's next release could be a complete flop. Then too, Rovio is doing it's best to extract as much money as possible from Angry Birds - everything from new level packs to merchandise, media tie-ins and spin-offs.
But fundamentally, the popularity of Angry Birds time will fade away, much as has happened (to a greater or lesser degree) with Lemmings, Pokemon, Creatures, Tamagotchi, Yu-Gi-Oh and all the other fads which have risen and fallen in the past. And at the moment, there's no proof that Rovio has the capability to produce a new IP. Whereas Popcap has produced successful game after game: they may not all have reached the heady heights of Bejewelled and Plants vs Zombies, but they've all paid their own way.
So given the choice, which would you pick as a long-term investment?
I agree with the general sentiment though - Popcap has had several huge hits with a variety of IPs and is a relatively safe bet. Rovio has had one huge hit and who knows if they'll be able to continue that success once that hit starts to die down in popularity.