Unless these are invite only shares, there is no way in the world they can "only sell to patient holders"
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Unless these are invite only shares, there is no way in the world they can "only sell to patient holders"
Yeah I read that wishful thinking too. The P in IPO means public. I would expect it to be an unrestricted sale.
Here comes Electronic Arts to save us all...
I know Wester says IPO in his tweet but it is nowhere stated in the article and by his own words the sales will be handeld unorthodoxly.
Last edited:
The institutional investors mentioned are fairly long-term with a proven track-record and include among others a pension fund, so those investors will likely be long term. An IPO will by definition be open to anyone. They can put certain restrictions and qualifiers on who gets to buy stocks, and if it gets over-subscribed then the company/the issuer will decide who gets priority. Either way if a minority holder is impatient then they will not be able to influence the company in the direction they want, they are more likely to sell and buy another company which more closely aligns with their views on economics.
- 1
Could we (the public) actually buy shares? From what I hear its difficult for the individuals to get in on IPOs, as shares usually get bought up straight away by other companies.
If I become a share holder, prepare for Rome 2 everyone!
If I become a share holder, prepare for Rome 2 everyone!
- 1
So long as you have an account with a bank that is signed up to trade on the Exchange that the stock is listed on you can buy some stocks in the IPO. There is usually a minimum that is given to anyone who has signed up, though if you sign up for a lot of shares and there is a very high interest then you might not get quite as many shares as you had wanted. Talk to your bank about buying stocks on OMX or First North (not sure where they will get listed).
- 2
I am a huge paradox fan and would love to be apart of the growing company. How do I get involved in the initial IPO?
Follow the press on this and make sure you have an account with a bank that can trade on the OMX/First North exchanges.
So would I. The only reason I keep my normal computer is so I can play PI games.
As a stakeholder in Paradox (we all are), I'm a little worried about this. Publicly owned video game companies have a very poor track record (Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard-Activision, to name a few) and they are the mean reason I don't buy AAA games any more.
On the other hand, as earlier posters have said, if the owners keep a majority stake, then this IPO is good for the company.
If EA or any other infamous publisher gets its hands on enough stocks to make a difference, I'm out faster than a Red Army officer during the Great Purge.
On the other hand, as earlier posters have said, if the owners keep a majority stake, then this IPO is good for the company.
If EA or any other infamous publisher gets its hands on enough stocks to make a difference, I'm out faster than a Red Army officer during the Great Purge.
- 1
I would also like to remind everyone that even with a 10-15% stake in a company (i.e., not even close to majority), an activist investor/organization (think Charles Icahn) can cause major changes to a company via it's board of directors/governors. Keeping 51% of the shares in the hands of one owner (or even a few), while preventing the risk of a hostile takeover by another group like EA doesn't magically make everyone else a silent partner in the venture either. That's the danger people keep alluding to...
Personally, I think an IPO could be good for Paradox, it really can infuse a lot of cash into an operation, and as long as shareholder expectations can be managed (via regular dividend pay outs and clear long-term growth potential in terms of sales and otherwise) companies do tend to be left alone.
I wonder what kind of IPO price they'd be shooting for and how much stock they'll issue (i.e., a conservative price to earnings ratio of 12, a moderate 15, aggressive 19? Unicorn-land style 100?) + what they expect their market cap to be (I know, all inter-related calculations...)
Personally, I think an IPO could be good for Paradox, it really can infuse a lot of cash into an operation, and as long as shareholder expectations can be managed (via regular dividend pay outs and clear long-term growth potential in terms of sales and otherwise) companies do tend to be left alone.
I wonder what kind of IPO price they'd be shooting for and how much stock they'll issue (i.e., a conservative price to earnings ratio of 12, a moderate 15, aggressive 19? Unicorn-land style 100?) + what they expect their market cap to be (I know, all inter-related calculations...)
- 4
- 1
We do not yet know how much of the company will be up for offer in the IPO, and while you can demand and get a seat on the board with "only" 10% (which is a rather large amount of money to put down in order to make them change their business model, better to spend that money somewhere that you don't have to fight for your views), that one seat on the board will still be a minority seat. The real risk as I've mentioned before is if say Fredrik Wester decides that he wants to do something else and just sells all of his shares to say EA or short-term thinking investors.
But like you I think overall this will be something good, unless it is truly bungled. Maybe America is different also, in Sweden it is not expected that a company will pay dividend necessarily if they are in a growing state. Due to the cost to the shareholder (taxes) it is often thought that if a company can instead use that money to grow at a faster rate than I can grow the dividend by re-investing it into something then it is better if the company keeps it. For mature companies dividends are expected of course.
The valuation will be interesting of course, hopefully it will be less than some industry contemporaries such as Starbreeze https://www.avanza.se/aktier/om-aktien.html/5528/starbreeze-b P/E of 84 is high, but then the hype around that company is pretty big (and they do have some fairly large projects in the pipe-line which could pay out).
- 2
I don't think this is anything to worry about. This isn't like the Bioware-EA sellout, or even the Vivendi-Blizzard thingy. There's no suggestion of a change in leadership.
It looks like part of the reason is to make compensation packages more sophisticated. This will enable them to attract--and keep--better talent in the long run. It also looks like part of the goal is to diversify the portfolio, which means different production cycles, which means less pressure to release games on a specific timescale. It also gives options in generating capital. I like all of this. I don't see the culture changing, and I certainly don't see any changes in how the games will be made at the development studio.
It looks like part of the reason is to make compensation packages more sophisticated. This will enable them to attract--and keep--better talent in the long run. It also looks like part of the goal is to diversify the portfolio, which means different production cycles, which means less pressure to release games on a specific timescale. It also gives options in generating capital. I like all of this. I don't see the culture changing, and I certainly don't see any changes in how the games will be made at the development studio.
- 1
Let's be real, the paradox games' merits as serious grand strategy games have been going downhill since Victoria II. EU IV might be polished, but in terms of having high intensity gameplay, it really lacks compared to Victoria II or even EU III. Hardcore grand strategy games only appeal to a niche audience and a non niche developer can never deliver that.
- 8
- 6
Shares can be offered in separate classes and series with different rights. The Swedish article indicates employees and players will be prioritized. It's possible those shares will have (more) voting rights than those sold to general investors. I'm sure such things will become clear in the coming period.
The scenario where Wester sells his shares can happen regardless of an IPO. If you own something, you can sell it to anyone who wants to pay for it. So this risk already exists.
The scenario where Wester sells his shares can happen regardless of an IPO. If you own something, you can sell it to anyone who wants to pay for it. So this risk already exists.
- 3
Well, the best thing for us to do is purchase whatever shares we can afford. That way we can keep Paradox on track.
- 2
I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about IPO's and all the financial shenanigans.
But it doesn't bode well to know the company's future may hang in the balance.
However i don't have any attachment to PDx, they make nice games but here's plenty of other games and devs out there.
I only discovered PDx after CA's Rome2 fiasco.
If PDx goes down the drain i might discover something else that's great but never heard anything about.
There's always an alternative.
Also you have to keep in mind that as a consumer you have a lot of choice.
Companies can only sell their game/product once, and consumers are a finite resource.
As a consumer there are however near unlimited amounts of games/products to choose from, one company more or less will hardly make a difference.
Either way all we can do is wait, but i do suggest not to attach yourself too much to a company, keep an open mind and be as objective as possible.
But it doesn't bode well to know the company's future may hang in the balance.
However i don't have any attachment to PDx, they make nice games but here's plenty of other games and devs out there.
I only discovered PDx after CA's Rome2 fiasco.
If PDx goes down the drain i might discover something else that's great but never heard anything about.
There's always an alternative.
Also you have to keep in mind that as a consumer you have a lot of choice.
Companies can only sell their game/product once, and consumers are a finite resource.
As a consumer there are however near unlimited amounts of games/products to choose from, one company more or less will hardly make a difference.
Either way all we can do is wait, but i do suggest not to attach yourself too much to a company, keep an open mind and be as objective as possible.
- 2
- 1
The real issue here is who has controlling ownership - whether the company is public or not.
If those controlling it have a short term focus, that's not good, and leads to next quarter profit chasing and underinvestment in R&D and long term projects. Think buy, squeeze & flip venture funds.
If the focus is on long-term success, then obviously - for us as gamers wanting them to continue to make great games for years - that's good. Think buy & hold investors.
From the sounds of the deal, it sounds like control will stay with those who care about the long-term future of Paradox.
If those controlling it have a short term focus, that's not good, and leads to next quarter profit chasing and underinvestment in R&D and long term projects. Think buy, squeeze & flip venture funds.
If the focus is on long-term success, then obviously - for us as gamers wanting them to continue to make great games for years - that's good. Think buy & hold investors.
From the sounds of the deal, it sounds like control will stay with those who care about the long-term future of Paradox.
Selling to "patient" investors means little to me if their motivation is to crack the console and mobile market which they have openly suggested it is. I wouldn't mind if they were selling a small percentage of shares to invest further into their development studio with the focus remaining on the PC and staying true to their roots but that's not what this is. They can and will do what they want obviously but I like paradox games for developing deep and unique strategy games which are best suited for the PC. I frankly don't care how selective they are about selling their shares when their motivation behind it is to invest into the console and mobile markets rather than what made Paradox in the first place and what earned my loyalty in the first place.
On the plus side they've assured us it'll be business as usual for PDS and I hope they remain true to that. I just would have personally preferred them (if they had to raise capital) to invest in what made the company great in the first place.
On the plus side they've assured us it'll be business as usual for PDS and I hope they remain true to that. I just would have personally preferred them (if they had to raise capital) to invest in what made the company great in the first place.
You can make deep strategy titles for console from a decision perspective, but it's important to get around the interface issues (ie, you can't design them with such a unit and map focus like the games we're used to on PC, unless you shoot for a much more simplified map) - many of the strategy RPGs on console are quite deep in a gameplay sense, but by being an RPG make it easier for the interface to focus on the "unit's" (the characters in this case). I don't know how much of an audience there is though (I love console gaming, and Paradox, so there'd be at least an audience of 1, but I couldn't foot the bill for it alone!) - the console audience is far, far more diverse than you'd think from reading the average PC gamers' commentary on it, and has plenty of niches, but it's obviously skewed heavily towards action/sports and action-RPGs.
I'm not sure about mobile, as I'm not mobile enough to use them much, so can't comment on their feasibility for that, but again I can't see why it wouldn't technically be possible, but am not sure whether the kind of deep strategy titles that people sit down to play for an hour or a two at a time would work in shorter sessions, or if people would sit with their phone/tablet for that long playing.
Of course, they could be angling at something else entirely - Crusader Crush for every platform imaginable
.