[RichardKim]

True statement. But only if the analysis was that easy... Yes, if that can continue but the 200m valuation is much more complicated than applying a 3x multiple on 73m earnings.

You have to model out and do a churn and fatigue analysis to get to your top-line volume potential over time (meaning, games like this for example, my friends who used to play 3 hours a day now play 30 minutes a week or just stopped playing... this is in a span of 3 weeks of playing!). What goes up can go down. Of course Robryan makes a great point about potential synergies but I would imagine synergies can't be that great. Who plays these games that haven't played angry bird or other zynga games? Only a subset of the population would be incremental new users.

What is the average churn rate per week/month? What is the avg user's playing time per month and trend (trend should go down over time) and one or both of the variables drop by 25-50% more than offsetting any new users added. Then that 2-3 year payback period to break even now turns into 4-5-6 years. So then would this game be still popular at all for that many years? Maybe. I don't know.

What I was pointing out was if somehow some new drawing game like my absurd example becomes more popular over the next 2-4 years then it's got a lot more binary risk embedded in that 200m valuation that most investors are not thinking about or priced in.

Now, I don't know how many people are paying members v. ad members. That may help / not help their case.

Hope that clears up any lack of clarity that I provided in my previous post!