You keep saying "very profitable", when SIE don't disclose their actual profits from the PC ports in isolation. So how would you know they're "very profitable" versus "decently profitable" versus "not very profitable"?
The answer is you don't, and insisting over and over that it's "very profitable" doesn't actually mean that is the reality. All we have are the revenue figures, and we also know the cost for ports can go up to $30+ million else that would not have been a cutoff specified by Jim Ryan for further clearance of ports.
We know their costs (aprox. a couple million per port, not 30M) and their revenues, so we know their (aprox.) profits. That's a fact. We also see in the graph they have a huge yearly growth.
In several cases cases we have even the exact cost of the PC ports (around 2M) and their revenue during a few early months or years, and have an insane ROI. That's another fact.
Plus the interim CEO stated it, and that they plan to double down in PC to improve their profitability. They wouldn't do if PC would be an unprofitable market. That's another fact.
So all the related facts we have tell us they are very profitable, have a great ROI which is way higher than with new games.
There isn't any fact that shows them as "decently profitable" or "not very profitable".
Doesn't Steam lower their cut to 20% after a certain sales threshold is met? Haven't you in the past suggested that Sony has a specific arrangement with Valve so they get more of the revenue for games sold on Steam? So which is the truth?
Yes, we say 30% cut to speak quickly.
Since 2018 it's 30% for until the game makes $10M for the publisher. In the portion that goes from $10M to 50M it's 25%. And when the publisher has made over 50M, then it's 20%.
Not just for Sony, but for everyone in Steam. In the case of mobile and consoles, there are a few cases where the few top publishers secretly have a better deal than the normal cut they have for everyone else.
So pretty likely the same applies for Steam.
You'll need more context for this graph because you've also incorrectly insisted that Rift Apart was not profitable until the PC port, a point discredited by numerous people multiple times. We also know, again using Rift Apart here, that this chart is older than others in that hack/leak, because the Rift Apart figures are almost 2 million below where they actually were before the PC port released.
Also keep in mind, figures like those for Wolverine are conservative estimates, because the game hasn't actually released yet. We also know that ALL of the numbers in this graph are conservative estimates, not the actual sales totals or revenue amounts (at least for Spiderman 2, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3) because the date cutoff for this graph's data is probably sometime mid-late 2022, or late 2022 at the absolute latest.
The data you say "discredits me" (not me, but the leaked slide posted above) was another one found later and apparently made later, I may be wrong but I think it was from shortly after HFW was included in PS+, shown in a table with
estimates in a document that was about making
estimates on the impact of including a game in PS+, particularly making projections about what HFW was going to have.
A document I assume that thanks to this document about
estimates they tought it wasn't a good idea to include Ratched in PS+ as quick as HFW did and instead prefered to wait some time more.
Which port costs 30+ million dollars?
As far as we know, no PC por costed 30M. The Sony PC ports budgets we know are somewhere around 1.5M and 3.5M aprox, around 2M.
In the table posted above we saw the cost of the Spider-Man Remaster did cost $39M. The remaster, not the PC port. And this is with Insomniac doing it, who with their prestige and in Californa have much higher salaries than an European porting studio.
