America's Army Costs US Taxpayers $32.8 Million

[Fatman gamer]

this argument is completly erelivent. it doesnt matter what it cost the fact is they spent it on a game. im a gamer but my games where from companies that did not cost the taxpayers any money. even if it only could have bought half a jet thats better than a worthless propaganda failure.

 

[SilentHunter7]

That's...actually not bad.

Considering how most titles today can double, triple, or even quadruple that much in a single 3-year development cycle (and how many other military line-items are numbered in the billions).

If anything, I think the games industry can learn from this.

-edit-
I somehow think that everyone bitching about how their taxpayer money is being 'wasted' by this hasn't the slightest clue as the actual scale of money the government, particularly the military deals with.

$3.3 Million a year toward a successful recruiting tool is nothing. It's not even a drop in the bucket. The army alone spent $216 Million just in the year 2005 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p02s01-usmi.html]. For 2010, the Army is making a total budget request of 141 Billion. [http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2009/05/07/20735-the-armys-budget-request---fiscal-2010/]

So that's...what? 1.5% of 2% of the budget of a single branch of the armed forces? To be spent on something that's FAR more effective than pretty much every other single thing that $216M recruiting budget is going towards? I'd call that a resounding success.

 

[Infonaut]

Nicely put, SilentHunter7. I was just going to look up the total Army recruiting budget and saw you'd beaten me to the punch.

As for bitching about the cost, consider that the most effective way to cut that $216M recruiting outlay would be to reinstate the draft.

Does that change your thinking?

 

[Yoshi_egg80]

Eh why can't government spending solutions can be something other than throwing money at the problem? That's pretty cheap way to recruit in comparison with other methods.

 

[Treblaine]

Whoops.

Buddy, that means this game was the equivalent cost of just over THREE deployed soldiers.

It costs $1'000'000 to deploy a soldier for 1 year and this is a 10 year long program, right?

I think the story should be "how the hell did the US Army not end up spending $20 Billion on this" as with so many other things they tend to overspend. But this 10 year program has been very efficient and as a recruitment tool (though I may not agree with 100%) it has certainly been cost effective.

Think about the thousands if not tens of thousands of men and women this brought to join the Army?

Over ten years, they could have spent $100 million and it would have been worth it. Here, let this quote explain it too you better (from 1997 no less):

<youtube=jTmXHvGZiSY>

 

[heyheysg]

I am willing to bet that there is a 'Professional' version of AA, for the soldiers use.

You just don't see that part

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

*gasp* A government run project that went grossly over budge by millions of dollars? I am shocked and appalled! I bet this doesn't happen ALL THE TIME. ...its not even that much money.

 

[FROGGEman2]

That's right America, money doesn't just appear out of thin air.

 

[Fists]

It's still a way better recruitment scheme than General Shepard's was.

 

[thevegetarianzombie]

I suppose that is a distinct possibility.

 

[firedfns13]

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.
Duh!

 

[UltimatheChosen]

$33 million is nothing when it comes to government. It takes billions to do anything of consequence.

 

[clicketycrack]

Better use of the money than buying, what, one tank or an eigth of a Raptor. It's not really that much.

seconded

33 millions probably just a drop in the bucket. Okay maybe a very, very large drop but still. I'm always shocked whenever I hear that you could buy about two nice houses for the price of one fucking missile. Why don't we just make one less missile and make a recruitment tool instead.