 |
|
|
| |
America's Army Costs Revealed To Be $33M Over Ten Years
by Chris Remo [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
December 9, 2009
|
| |
Total expenses for America's Army, the free first-person shooter developed and operated by the United States Army, have totaled $32.8 million since 2000, according to newly-revealed information.
Consumer site GameSpot obtained the budgetary data by issuing a Freedom of Information Act request to the US Army. The government's budget on the game has ranged from $1.29 million in 2005 to $5.60 million -- the highest yearly cost -- in 2001, the year before the first full release of the game. On average, annual expenditures have been $3.28 million.
According to GameSpot, certain requested information was withheld, as "disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry."
America's Army was released in 2002, and the sequel America's Army 3 was released this year. The games were developed by an Emeryville, California-based studio until America's Army 3 shipped, after which the Army took all development in-house at Alabama's Redstone Arsenal.
It is unclear if the published budget includes any spending on the series' console spinoffs, which were published (and likely funded in large part) by Ubisoft.
The taxpayer-funded games and technology have been famously effective as Army recruiting tools -- more effective than "any other method," according to Congressional testimony -- but they have also paid off as internal training and simultaion tools. "When we build something in America’s Army, the U.S. government owns it completely...and [it] can therefore be used for any application or use of the game. So costs keep going down," Col. Casey Wardynski said of the program to Defense Systems.
According to a Washington Examiner report published last month, one quoted Air Force colonel said that in his experience, video game proficiency (not specific to America's Army) has made younger recruits significantly more adept with modern remote warfare techniques, but in many cases has also left them "worse at distorting the reality of [war] from the virtual nature."
|
| |
|
|
Is your question about this game in particular, or the principle of the Army using recruiting tools in general? America's Army is one of the Army's numerous recruiting tools, and as noted in the article costs are also defrayed to an extent because the platform on which the game is built is used for training and simulation purposes as well.
Well, then again...
And for those complaining about the cost, that's about the cost it takes to fully arm an F-22/A, or to build ten Abrams tanks. For an army that spends like it can take the world hostage at any time, they were remarkably frugal with this.
Then you have a problem with centuries of tradition. War has been romanticized since time immemorial, as has military service. Your question is a nice talking point, but $32.8M is a pittance in Washington. As an Apollo astronaut once said, "You can't take a s--- in Washington without spending $50M." Governments spread costs over large populations, so the burden of $32.8M over 10 years on the individual taxpayer is negligible, to the likely point of being in the millionths or billionths of a cent.
Since I've brought up space, is your next question going to be "why are we spending money up there instead of down here?" If so, then I have news for you: your "warfare state," the military-industrial complex, and the space program produce innovations that we depend on every day, from conveniences to infrastructure to organizations and to electronics that make video games possible.
While you might find funding video games such as America's Army morally reprehensible, you and many others are beneficiaries -- regardless of whether you want to recognize that is so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/business/media/09adco.html?ex=1320728400&en=82
72a96f1c9dc293&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This article describes the "Army strong" campaign started in 2006, a $1.35 billion dollar spend for a combination of traditional and internet media.
1.35 billion / 32.8 million = 41.1585366 times the cost of America's Army. Plus this campaign is estimated to run for only five years while AA has been running for nine. And hiring recruiters is even more expensive than the ads. While there are lots of things one could complain about w/r to the military, this probably isn't one of them. They always need new recruits, it's effective, and it can be done at little cost.
The cost ratios are a major reason why "advergaming" in general has picked up steam. For the price of a high-end national TV spot, a game can be produced instead. Or, as has happened with the Flash market, independently funded games can attach themselves to sponsors.
"This one of the biggest lies ever told by the government. Guess what dude, but these innovations really come from the private sector, government only just assume its their property."
Not true, a good example of this is the GPS system. This system is used extensively by civilian aviation, maritime, and ordinary consumers. The billions of dollars spent by the US Air Force researching the system and launching all of those satellites to make GPS possible would have been too expensive/risky for the private sector to accomplish.
Because the Military owns this country and that's not going to change anytime soon as evident by WarBama's sad impersonation of GW last week.