In the world of sports, success is a simple equation. If you score more points than your opponent, you succeeded. Outside of sports, things are not so simple. A film-maker may measure success by ticket-sales. An author may measure by critical acclaim. A pop-star could measure their version of success through popularity. If you were Wilt Chamberlain, you might measure success by the amount of women you sleep with (in the world of basketball, quantity and quality have very little difference). We see the same thing in video games. So how should we measure success? Should success be measured differently by different people, based on differences?

Counter-strike measures success by prize-money per-year, and by overall popularity. Quake, clearly, is unconcerned with popularity. For Quake players, it is purely a matter of critical acclaim. Although certainly, Quake players would also measure success based on prize-money. If Quake began measuring success by popularity, how would it change the game? Does more popularity automatically mean less critical acclaim?

Some games measure success by sales. Others, by having a solid multiplayer community. Today, we occasionally see games measured by competitive competency. In pro-gaming, or e-sports, a game must pass the competition standard. Hot, cold, sweet, sour... are they factors when testing a game for competitiveness? Possibly not, but occasionally, you see a player measured by their ability to get 'hot'.

In today's world, we have many technological advancements to assist with measuring. But, if you do not know what to measure, they are all worthless. Maybe we shouldn't measure any one specific thing, we should measure everything?

What do you think? How should success be measured? If we don't measure everything, can we understand what will work?