Zynga is worth more then EA

" Waaaaaaaa a game that I dislike is very popular! Time for more crying! "

" FUCK THINGS THAT ARE POPULAR FUCK EM  NOW LETS ENJOY SOME RARE OBSCURE IMPORTED JRPG THATS ONLY GOOD BECAUSE NOBODY HAS HEARD OF IT "

The key is that there games take practically nothing to make and support, while EA pours millions of dollars into every game in order to make them good. 
 
 Lack of pride really helps in business, apparently.

Is Mafia Wars even a real game? I always assumed it was just a Facebook thing where you get more shit if you spam the fuck out of your friend's inboxes.

" @Ahmad_Metallic:  I do know how it works, it's really rather simple marketing and ad sales.  You asked to be called stupid, I didn't just volunteer it and I did so somewhat humourously.  I also gave you an answer and their earning capacity, as I already said and as people have already tried to explain in more detail, speaks for itself.  Instead of questioning others on a forum, why not look that shit up?  If it really interests you. "

Zynga "Games" = Shit.
People who play them constantly = Morons.

It seems like everyone posting in this thread hasn't actually read the articles or the original sources. 
 
First, the Joystiq article (and the OP) is wrong. Zynga did not make $1.6 billion in profit this year. The entire virtual goods market generated approximately $1.6 billion revenue this year, of which Zynga took about a third, or $600 million. Revenue is all income a business receives before expenses. Profit is revenue minus expenses. A high revenue doesn't even necessarily mean you'll even make a profit. EA, for example, had a revenue for fiscal 2010 of 3.654 billion but had a net loss for the year of $677 million. It's also worth nothing that EA's revenue from digital content was $766 million, or over 25% more than Zynga's total revenue, which is entirely digital content. 
 
Second, market analysts expect the virtual goods market to grow to $3.6 billion in the next 3 years (not Zynga's profits), meaning that Zynga is well positioned in a new and rapidly growing market. EA, on the other hand is well positioned in an already established market which probably won't more than double in 3 years (the retail games market is actually declining), so it makes sense that Zynga's valuation is higher since it's market is likely going to grow by a lot, whereas the majority of EA's market (retail games) is shrinking, meaning investing in Zynga has a higher likelihood of turning a profit.
 
Thrid, this valuation is based on the selling prices of stocks of a privately held company (of which there are a comparatively small number of stocks and they are rarely sold) versus the selling prices of stocks of a publicly held company (of which there are a high number of stocks and they are often sold). This type of comparison will naturally favor the privately held company because determining the value of a privately held company is notoriously difficult. For example, this type of valuation (which is really just a fancy word for guessing) is why according to Sharespost, the same people who currently value Zynga at $5.51 billion, Facebook is valued at $32.79 billion despite having an annual revenue of only $800 million.
 
So, don't freak out and think the games industry is going to be nothing but Farmville clones in 3 years. According to the same valuation, Activision is worth $13.9 billion. Also, a company you've likely never heard of, Tencent Holdings Ltd., who provide value-added services like social networking services and multiplayer games for mobile phones in China is worth $43 billion.