Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You don't need to tell me what revenue is, but you should do your peers the courtesy of actually reading what you're replying to. He said net revenue. That first word, "net", has a lot of meaning. Net revenue is not the same as revenue. In fact, it's kinda unfortunate use of terms in finance as it tends to confuse people like you just got confused. I will say it again (since it's obvious from your reply you didn't read what you were replying to). "Net revenue" (which is not "revenue") is the money left from sales after you deduct the sales expenses and cost of the goods. Are you getting it now? It's not "profit" as it does not account for all possible expenses (like it does not count capital expenses) but it does account for most expenses (like cost of sales and cost of goods sold). It's what most people mean when they use the term "profit" in common parlance. Net revenue should not be confused with simply "revenue". He's definitely saying the books are making them more money than they cost - that's (in a nutshell) what positive net revenue means.
ICv2 was behind the previous interview, too where Leeds described sales as 'very, very strong'
The question is not what is necessarily happening now. At some point in the relatively near future, unless there's lots of growth in players of D&D, sales of the core 3 books must drop.
They've also said there is a lot of growth in players. Assuming they're not lying, that means the sales of the core 3 do not have to drop. And so far, all reported numbers from objective sources confirm that.