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.

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.  

Well, you said "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"

That's why I thought it prudent to point out that I wasn't comparing those 2 companies, but simply pointing out that revenue is not a predictor of profit. Hell, I could have picked KFC or Adidas.

Pointing out that it was not a good comparison, to me isn't a valid point, as I wasn't comparing them in the first place...

No biggie though!

Revenue, on it's own doesn't tell us anywhere near enough to draw a meaningful conclusion - within the context of this forum anyway.

I'm sure on the forums of The Economist where people have a deep understanding of particular companies / trends / business models, they could draw meaningful conclusions, though they'd still want to see how that translated to profit - but this forum is not that. I mean it's evident that a lot here don't even understand the distinction between revenue & profit...

You can have companies with large revenues that are healthy & other's that are haemorrhaging money...

Bottom line, I think it's asinine to compare revenue of a digital store front to a hardware/software company - don't you? And if you don't agree, can you explain why?

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.

Great point about the online pass. IIRC Sony started that nonsense on PSP. That directly affected the price GameStop could sell used games for, as it made no sense for them to charge their usual $5 off MSRP on used titles when you’d then have to spend $10-20 for an online pass.

Plus he’s mistaken about Microsoft’s original intent. They weren’t killing second hand sales. They had it set up to where you could trade in games at select retailers. No way GameStop wasn’t one of those. And with only select retailers being able to take Xbox One games for trade, it would have allowed them much more leeway on controlling trade in prices and amount of credit given. In the end Microsoft’s original vision was garbage for gamers but would have likely been good for a place like GameStop.

Amazing how does things change.
Massive profits, massive profits, massive losses, now back to even bigger massive profits again.
PSN is such a cash cow for Sony.

Unfortunately it is a viable path. Not a very consumer and employee friendly path, but still very very viable.

That being said, Sony's gaming divison runs close to a 20% profit. That is awesome for everyone. The company as a whole runs under 10% which is bad business if you are not a publically traded company.

Sony is killing it in the gaming industry. I love it.

Well like I said, I didn't misunderstand why you posted that figure. And my point wasn't related to whether you want to call it a comparison or not, so that's just arguing semantics.
You could have picked another example, sure, but you chose one where the profit was not even 0,1% of the revenue. 

That's not an example relevant to PSN today, because it's not the kind of business model that takes risks with their investments like that.
Their entire gaming sector does, but not 'PSN alone', which is the subject.