You clearly know more about these things than me, only point I'd question is your assessment of net current value being around 30 million. They sold about 10% of the company for 46 million, which suggests your figure is a bit off doesn't it?
Facts are, they have secured bank loans and they have secured private investment.
I'd question 'volatile revenue', which has consistently been 30+million dollars a year for, what, 5 years running? It may bounce up and down month to month but year on year is steady as a rock.
As for 'no tangible product', well, there's plenty of people playing in the ever expanding PU every day and spending money to facilitate said play. I reckon 21 Millon dollars in two months is pretty fucking tangible!
Well you got a point i haven't run a real valuation. It's more a simple look at their annual reporting and book values (and even not that truly).
But onwards onto actual valuation, CIG is currently not running any profit. So they're at a 'make belief' position and some people will believe you when you're in an elevator with them an got a few seconds to tell you how your online bookshop might sell huge amounts in the future and others will tell you books are dying. In the same way some people will believe you when you tell them you've got a machine that only needs to need a pint of blood instead of litres to find out every illness someone has for less money and others won't.
Now again towards the negatives (in terms of why i'm more critical about what people percieve the worth) - already high monetization of their user base, user base growth might be limited by their actual theme and game focus (how many play WoW instead of Eve Online?), currently a game that doesn't run well on mid-tier systems (lesser chance to sell well in e.g. BRIC countries), ongoing server costs vs. onetime sales, complex game without clear focuses - such often sell less well.
So comparitavely speaking you've got 4 big main sellers currently - SP + Microtransactions complex stories and such; Freemium simple games; Moderately complex MMOs (even though that seems to have died down a bit) and ongoing supscription fees; Competitive fast paced reflex games with microtransactions. Where would you place SC? Which means is it sensible to estimate a maximum of 2 - 10 millions player on an uncertain release or it reaching the actual Olymp of 5 times that?
And all that isn't even covering some problems they're quite likely running into, like:
- attrition of their engine base, as they'll have to spend more and more money to keep their engine up to date.
- attrition of their art assets - they already had to redo stuff, because they though their initial quality level they aimed for was to low.
- upcoming rivals (honestly people will now understand that there's money in Sci-Fi space games; and with a constant outflow of knowledge from CIG even if you give them the doubt of them having cutting-edge technology, that will get out there).
- actually making the game fun, with for players with interfering gaming foci (the ole' how can have a PVE gamer have fun, when the game is PVP?; How can the soldier on ground have fun, when other's are playing bombers?). I don't see CIG yet making good and solid points in these respects.
An all of the above still hinges on them actually delivering what they've promised yet.
It's a single project company currently, which isn't running a profit. Meaning it's really a venture investment - and those people normally look for at least a 3 times payout on projects that actually get finished (because the success ratio is around 33% - so for 3 projects funded 3 die without making back much) in some cases more, in some less. And you can count on a lot of people wanting a tenfold repayment within only a couple of years. Which is why movies that got made for ~150 millions and only made 300 millions are considered quite bad ones if not to say financial failures.
So again, my conclusion stands as this being a high risk project, with a fanbase that shifts uncomfortably currently.
--
And again already being in debt is not exactly positive for wanting to go deeper into debt and loans and investment are different things. So just because they got someone and already had some loans, doesn't mean that's nessecarily something inviteable.
@All sorry for the long shitty post. I hope at least someone gets something worthwhile from it.
