As subsequently established after your post, it will likely be the case that Sony has to pay the developers out of their revenue which in all likelihood is a big old chunk.
I wasn't comparing Sony to Amazon, I was simply using a well known company as an example of revenue not being an indicator of profit.
What is not a good comparison is the revenue of a digital store front to a console/software company.
Right. I think that's probably the case with the revenue.
Though I'm not sure why you're saying 'I wasn't comparing'. It's not like I misunderstood why you mentioned it.
So I thought it's worth pointing out that PSN's business model has very little to do with investment capital/risk. And many of the large expenses that a company like Amazon have to shell out for on top of the cost of purchasing the products they sell (factory, packaging, storage, shipping and wages to an amount of workers that probably eclipse the staff working on PSN) are mainly non existent for a store that's entirely digital.
Though they could coincidentally have similar profit margins, but it would be for very different reasons.
And I mentioned Capcom to highlight the difference between the $60 that Gamestop makes, vs the $60 that PSN makes.
That in Gamestop's case, there's no question if the entire sum is their revenue, since they already paid for the game. In PSN's case, they didn't pay for the game, so that $60 is split up after the fact, making it a bit more unclear as to how it potentially could function. But I think they most likely count the entire $60 as their revenue as well.
If for no other reasons, it just sounds a lot better to be able to boast high revenue numbers.