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

Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.

[GrpA]

Three games in total on the budget of a startup... That's pretty good.

This would have to be one of the army's most cost-effective projects ever then, wouldn't it?

GrpA

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

[Ill_Omen]

From the statistics you posted for the enlisted forces:

73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree
16.2 percent have an associate’s degree or equivalent semester hours
4.7 percent have a bachelor’s degree

I gotta say, reading that makes me think John Kerry might have been right after all. That's an awful lot of college kids that didn't finish college.

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

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Let's apply a bit of research to that John Kerry quote, turns out he just boffed a joke, the copy of his written remarks that was handed out to reporters before he made the speech had this sentence at that point: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Something that the youtube sound-bite has conveniently edited out is the fact that he was clearly beating up on Bush at that point, to take his statement the way you have is to completely ignore the context and assume he just decided to make a random comment about the military in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion.

I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it. However, I do blame you for citing Murtha - how does accusing someone of murder equate to thinking that they are dumb or poor? Since when do only dumb or poor people commit homicide? Sounds like you may be a classist. And, you didn't even get that one right either, Wuterich is still charged with negligent homicide.

So, in summary you have completely failed to support your claims that Murtha or Kerry have a "desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people."

Now, lets take on the general perception that poor and uneducated people end up in the military...

99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."

You just kicked the crap out of your premise with that one.

let's compare:

Bachelor's Degree:
enlisted force: 4.7%
us population: 16.7%

Master's Degree:
enlisted force: 0.7%
us population: 5.9%

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_009.asp

And don't even try to point at the officers - a bachelor's is a requirement to be a commissioned officer, having a degree gives you options. This is about the military being the employer of last resort for a lot people. If that were not the case, we would not have seen the number of conduct waivers double over the last 5 years - the people with options have been going elsewhere.

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:Sad but true

[KDR_11k]

So they relied on proven industry standards then?