America's Army Games Cost $33 Million Over 10 Years

Responding to a Freedom Of Information Act request, the US government has revealed the operating costs of the America's Army game series over the past decade. The total bill comes to $32.8 million, with yearly costs varying from $1.3 million to $5.6 million. "While operating America's Army 3 does involve ongoing expenses, paying the game's original development team isn't one of them. Days after the game launched in June, representatives with the Army confirmed that ties were severed with the Emeryville, California-based team behind the project, and future development efforts were being consolidated at the America's Army program office at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. A decade after its initial foray into the world of gaming, the Army doesn't appear to be withdrawing from the industry anytime soon. In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.'"

Comments

Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2

[mjwx]

and the US army has managed how many releases over ten years for less money incl hosting?

Methinks the industry is doing something wrong.

Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!

[steve buttgereit]

'In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.'

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a fan of America's Army and like the games. But that the Federal Government, much less the Army, should be concerned with its ability to compete against private industry? Isn't that contrary to our beliefs regarding the purposes of Government and of our economic system (at least in the U.S.)? And to top it off, it's denying a FOIA request on the basis, not of national security, an on-going criminal investigation or violation of someone's privacy, but on the basis of what could be called a trade secret? And it's so bogus to boot, they can invest as much as they want into the program to out-compete their private industry competitors without fear as they don't have to recoup their expenses... the Army won't go out of business if they spend foolishly. Private companies on the other hand do go out of business when they fail to have excess revenues to costs... unless you're a car company or a well connected bank of course. I know it's not the first time this has happened (Amtrak, USPS), but still... aren't the existing game companies good enough?

(Stepping off of soap box and taking big breath to facilitate big sigh)

Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.

[Tellarin]

From a conversation I had at GDC a couple years ago with an army guy involved in the project, the main goal was not recruitment, quite the opposite.

He claimed that the army looses a lot of money and resources in training new people, who just give up somewhere along the training or right after it. So the game was originally developed to try to show that "real combat" is not what happens in FPSs and thus weed out some of the applicants.

Of course, the PR impact was welcome.

Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.

[Cwix]

With a lot of new equipment the army is fielding, hand eye co-ordination was a major factor too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Weapon_System A lot of the army's vehicles are equipped with these now. Ive used one, it is almost exaclty like a video game screen. They also love the fact that they can start feeding you things like rank structure, acronyms, small unit tactics, and other assorted army tidbits, everybit you come in with on your own, the less they have to teach you.

Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.

[d3ac0n]

Mandatory target practice is one thing, but virtual instruction that actually plays no part in gameplay is a bit idiotic.

Unless, as Tellarin stated, the goal is to provide a more realistic simulation of what being in the Army is all about without the whole "spend months and months in training" bit. Thus the required learning and tests make perfect sense.

Honestly I think it's a smart approach. The last thing you want recruits to think is that you can join the Army and they just give you guns to play with. While I can't speak for other country's militaries, being a member of the American armed forces is actually quite difficult. Not merely on a physical level, but it is VERY mentally challenging.

Thus you will find that a very large portion of the American armed forced are highly intelligent and more often than not from middle class families. Despite some politician's desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people, the truth is the exact opposite.

(Note that I have never served in the American armed forces or any armed forces. Although I HAVE played the AA game and enjoyed it quite a bit. Hmmm.. Now I want to go download and play it again!)