ArchangelMadzz said:
Ka-pi96 said:

They do earn or receive it though. You buy a $60 game from PSN and Sony receive $60, that's a fact. It doesn't matter that they have to pay out $40 (or whatever the actual amount is) to the publisher of the game after that, they still initially received $60.

I get that you see it that way, but it's not legally revenue when the money goes through them to be filtered off to another company. Steam's revenue reports are theirs and do not include the money that developers get. 

Think of it this way.

If they did it your way imagine how shit their profit margins in their reports would be if their earnings report showed they LOST $40 for every 3rd party game they sold. That's 100's of millions of loss every single quarter. That doesn't look good, and it's obvious that's not the way they do things. 

How is that not legally revenue? When I go to a restaurant and buy a $10 meal they record that as $10 in revenue. If they were to deduct the cost of the food from that and then report the reduced amount as revenue then that is what would be illegal.

Also that $40 is not a loss, it's an expense All businesses that sell products have the money they pay to the producer of said product as an expense. It would show $60 revenue, $40 expense & $20 profit for each 3rd party game sold.That's not accounting for other expenses of course, but that's the jist of how it would work.

Besides how else would their revenue be nearly ¥1.4T while their profit is ¥247.2B*. There's a ¥1.15T difference between those figures, if payments to 3rd party publishers for their games purchased through PSN doesn't count as part of that money then what on earth did they spend ¥1.15T on?

*profit figure taken from Rol's post is Apr-Dec rather than the full year like the revenue figure in OP, but even including Jan-Mar profit there would still be a huge disparity between revenue and profit so the point still stands.

Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018.