No, revenue is far from a unimportant figure.

Sure, Amazon loses money regularly. Netflix maybe too. But their revenue keep growing, showing that they lose money but expand their business, their customer base, their reach. It's a strategy for some companies to sacrifice the profit for the growth.

Profit is important, of course, but revenue allows you to see the "size" of the company. Surely some small online shopping companies have a better profit than Amazon, but does that mean that Amazon is losing to them? No. 

Both are important and go together, you can't say "this one doesn't matter, give me the other one".

Well, that aside I want to point out that comparing a fairly straight forward online service platform to a company like Amazon is not a good comparison to make. @Biggerboat1
Amazon often invest their own money into the products they sell. New games and consoles for example, they buy them in bulk for a certain price, and then sell them to consumers at a higher price.
They're reliant on how much they sell, after they've invested money into the product. And if it doesn't meet sales expectations, they may lower the price, etc.

Very different from how Sony sell games on PSN. Sony don't buy in any quantities of the games they sell through PSN. They just host the digital data. Whenever someone downloads a game from their store, they simply take a cut of the sale. Whether it's millions or thousands of copies, they didn't invest an amount of money corresponding to that number.

The costs are instead things like servers, maintenance, bandwidth, R&D, etc. And paying for the games that are offered Free through PS Plus.

So it stands to reason that their profit margins are generally a lot closer to their net profit when it comes to sales, due to the nature of PSN. Unlike Amazon where that can vary a lot depending on what is sold, and who is selling it.

That's not true at all.  Revenue is important for growth, which in turn can lead to increased market share and a stronger position in the marketplace.  Look at Amazon share price and tell me that it's not a viable path.  

1.  This shows why Sony's gaming division just had it's most profitable year.  Digital has much higher profit margins than physical.  

2.  This also shows why Gamestop has been in trouble.  Their alleged allies are competing against them.  Normally a console maker and retailer are partners in sales.  Not anymore, because Sony and Microsoft have their own online stores (and to a lesser extent Nintendo).  If Gamestop were smart, then would look for ways to gradually focus more on Nintendo and less on Sony and Microsoft.  The latter two are just throwing Gamestop under the bus anyway.

As I mentioned in my other replies, revenue is kinda pointless to look at in the context of a gaming forum - especially when comparing a digital store front with a console/software company - what we need to know is profit!

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 threw that figure in there.
So I thought it's good to point 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.

And I mentioned Capcom to highlight the difference between the $60 that Gamestop makes, vs the $60 that PSN makes.

It's not pointless in any measure of the word.  Revenue is very important--that's why it gets reported and why it gets talked about so much.  If Sony called it a day and just closed up shop after giving a quarterly report, then you'd be right, but that's not what's going to happen.  Revenue is the ability to keep moving forward, which is why it often means more to observers than margins.  Many of the most prominent companies in the world got that way by prioritizing revenue.  It's a measure of scope and a window on potential.  

This is just insane. Sony's division is almost equal to the others combined. 

I disagree. Sony basically kept gamestop afloat by not following MS and killing second hand sales. Not only that but they even forced MS to change. That was a serious lifeline from Sony. Plus the big games from them often get better deals at retail. 

Nope, he's right when he's saying that their alleged allies are competing against them. You're glorifying Sony for something that would have never happened in any case. The backlash Microsoft suffered started after the unveiling of the console, not at E3 and if Sony had made the same decision, the market would look different. Do I have to remind you that Sony was part of a small group of publishers which imposed a fee for online play on used games ?

If GameSpot is still afloat today, it's because they took the right decisions at the right time to postpone their downfall.