America's Army Cost Taxpayers $32.8 Million

[uh_no]

waste of a marcus yam article....didn't even bash windows

 

[bak0n]

It's considered part of their advertisement budget. Personally its smart marketing.

 

[Manos]

I dont htink it was SO much money worth... And im not even American. How can you come up with a game so expensive when taxpayers are ppl that cant even afford to play games in a lot of cases? I just find it wrong. Even if I enjoyed the game when it was new ( yes, 2000-2001 ) and not ever since, I still find it wrong. Had no clue it wa funded from taxmoney.

 

[guythepro]

[citation][nom]tleavit[/nom]We dump 750 billion a year into military, 3 million for this game inst even a drop in the bucket. remember that next time you complain about 80 billion a year to cover every man women and child in this country with health care.[/citation]

Military spending (actually $601B this year) is only third, next to Medicare ($710B) and Social Security ($641B). The problem with national healthcare's price is not that it's going to be $80B, but rather just about every single program the government has ever launched has seen its actual cost go far and above the initial projected cost. It's not hard to imagine that $80B hitting $800B given the same exact thing happened to Medicare.

 

[raybob95]

Next Headline:

'Obama Cost Taxpayers ~$2 Trillion'

 

[eddieroolz]

That's not too bad of a sum, $34million over a decade. What else to do with the Army is cheaper than that?

We should make our own version...Canadian Army. That would be effective xD

 

[g0rilla]

Are these budgetary numbers only for the public release of the game, or does this include the cost of the simulators created for Army use?

 

[Kelavarus]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]That's not too bad of a sum, $34million over a decade. What else to do with the Army is cheaper than that?We should make our own version...Canadian Army. That would be effective xD[/citation]

Only comment worth +1'ing here, and I'm American. Go you.

 

[pocketdrummer]

For the quality of the game, it's not worth the expense. Especially when we don't have adequate protection for our troops. Those millions could have been spent on bulletproof vests.

 

[mickey21]

Hands down, money well spent. It reaches the target demographic excellently, it costs less than other mainstream means to advertise their intentions, not to mention you can entertain soldiers in the field with a game they can play as well. I know plenty of Army enlisted friends that play the game regularly. WIN+WIN+WIN

Over ten years, not a waste at all.

 

[arlandi]

good thing i'm not an American.

 

[dextermat]

That's what i hate about USA and the army: wasting away money to garnish some rich boy pockets. If America's army cost 28 million for real: they paid people to do absolutely nothing.

All version of AA is just adapted to better graphics, but not much new content.

 

[Guest]

@james_8970 the game is free to download, there is no revenue opportunity. The game itself has gotten to a point where there are less than 500 active players (for the most part) playing and the majority of them are from Europe or elsewhere other than the US. I would be willing to bet that the number of people who actually joined the army or considered it because of this game is minimal at best, but more likely zero.

It's latest version has taken over a year to be patched, during which time only 2 maps were added and the same bugs, though less frequent, still exist...sad