America's Army cost US Govt $33m

By Oli Welsh Published 9 December, 2009

Project has now been running for a decade.

The America's Army series of free-to-play shooters cum military recruitment tools has cost the American taxpayer $32.8 million over 10 years.

That's according to figures obtained by GameSpot from the US Government under the Freedom of Information Act. The money's been spent on a number of expansions, new versions, consoles spin-offs and sequels - the latest release, America's Army 3, launched this year.

Originally, the project was intended to cost just $7 million over five years. External development has been cut in favour of an internal US Army development team, according to GameSpot.

Spending isn't drying up, either. The figures show a fairly steady stream of cash leaving the Army's coffers, with the biggest-spending year being during initial development - $5.6m in 2001 - and dipping to a low of $1.3m in 2005, but both 2008 and 2009 saw a budget of well over $3m spent on the game.

The British Army took its first steps into videogame recruitment this year, although former Major Neil Powell argued to Eurogamer that it "would never dream" of fully emulating the America's Army project.

"The US Army is miles ahead of us on that," he said."They understand completely their target audience."

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (32) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • nuanimal #1 2 years ago

    Interesting that... but in all honesty, that is a very expensive marketing drive for US tax payers. Yes there are other free-to-play games out there but they are supported through micro-transactions, perk subscriptions or ads.

    Any US outrage, anywhere?

  • kangarootoo #2 2 years ago

    "They understand completely their target audience"

    Too bloody right they do. People who will sign up to the military off the back of a video game, i.e. stupid people.

  • tomjoadsghost #3 2 years ago

    Actually in terms of either military spending or the mooted development costs of videogames that seems like a pretty reasonable amount to me.

  • mode7 #4 2 years ago

    $33 isn't even pocket change for the US Government compared to the countless billions they spend on the Army.
    Edited by 2 at 09/12/09 @ 10:07

  • ignatiusjreilly #5 2 years ago

    Seriously, the money isn't the problem it's the morality.

    Funny how with all the media-bashing of video games, the most immoral one of all hardly ever gets a mention.

  • kangarootoo #6 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    But you forget, actual killing is apparently morally ok. Its the fictional killing that is the problem, because word is it might lead people to kill in real life.... oh.

  • ignatiusjreilly #7 2 years ago

    Its the fictional killing that is the problem

    Of course, those games are murder simulators. America's Army is different, it's a righteous justice simulator.

  • masterson #8 2 years ago

    I do not see a moral issue in all honesty.

    Is it immoral that most nations feel they require some form of military force?
    Is it immoral that said military force needs to find willing recruits?
    Is it immoral that they know how to effectively target 18-35 year old males?

    If your point is "Boo hoo hoo - war is nasty" then I'd obviously agree, but as long as they occur and we need troops then I accept they have to find them somewhere.

    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 10:29

  • ignatiusjreilly #9 2 years ago

    @masterson

    Militaries have to advertise, especially in times of war - it's not particularly heart-warming but I understand that.

    My problem with it is that they are subtly equating the war games with real war, when actually the two have nothing in common whatsoever. When you're advertising for people to risk their lives for you, you have a duty to be more honest than if you are promoting MP3 players.

  • masterson #10 2 years ago

    I certainly see your point, but I do not see this as any worse than the adverts to get people to join the military that air in the UK (and in the Netherlands where I am now). They make the military look like an exciting/fun adventure as opposed to taking orders and getting shot at. But hey - that's advertising for you - McDonalds do not show obesely fat people in their ads and car manufacturers do not show twisted car wrecks in theirs.

  • kangarootoo #11 2 years ago

    @masterson

    "Is it immoral that they know how to effectively target 18-35 year old males?"

    That one.


    "I certainly see your point, but I do not see this as any worse than the adverts to get people to join the military that air in the UK"

    We agree. They are both cynical marketing campaigns, preying on ignorance.

    I would love to see an honest recruitment campaign that says "Look, this shit can be dangerous and you might get killed. If you think it will all be windsurfing and laser guided missles, you should look elsewhere. But here are some reasons why we still think you should consider joining."
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 10:57

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #12 2 years ago

    According to this web page:

    [link url=http: //www.frankwbaker.com/thirtysecadcosts.htm
    ]http://ww w.frankwbaker.com/thirtysecadco...[/link]

    that 33 million would get you perhaps as little as 35 minutes of primetime TV advertising. Or 7 minutes during the superbowl.

    So I'd say it's probably money well spent on their part.

  • Quickstick4 #13 2 years ago

    Non of you have been to a recruitment office recently have you. They are quite plain to soldiers these days: you do your basic training and then are probably sent straight of to Afghanistan.

    One of me closest freinds is going thought Shandhurst right now and ever since she expressed an interest in the Army they told her she would be deployed as soon as she passed out of shandhurst.

    There was a small debate in the military as to weather or not to say that you would go straight to a war zone or not, and saying that you would; won, because the military needs people who accept that they are signing to fight for their country in whatever way the government deams fit...if the war your fighting is justified or not is not your concern.

    Im probably going to get neg feedback for this....again

  • kangarootoo #14 2 years ago

    @Quickstick4

    Glad to hear it.

    I always find it puzzling when a debate breaks out that includes military personel talking about why they think they should or shouldn't be going to fight in whichever part of the world is currently on the table. As you say, personal opinion is neither here nor there - people join up to be told what to do (at a campaign level), not decide for themselves.

  • masterson #15 2 years ago

    "None of you have been to a recruitment office recently have you?"

    We're too busy posting here to fight virtual soldiers let alone real ones. :)

  • drxym #16 2 years ago

    I don't see ANY morality issue here. AA is probably one of the most realistic shooters there is. Bang, you're dead. It's also filled with some incredibly boring training events. If you still want to join the army after that, then clearly that sort of thing appeals to you.

    I also think the British Army could do with their own version. Commission a version of Arma II with realistic weapons and situations and thing would be a storming success.

  • ignatiusjreilly #17 2 years ago

    AA is probably one of the most realistic shooters there is. Bang, you're dead. It's also filled with some incredibly boring training events. If you still want to join the army after that, then clearly that sort of thing appeals to you

    Your answer illustrates why I think it is immoral. Thinking that if the game appeals to you, real war would too. The two are not even loosely related.

  • masterson #18 2 years ago

    I would hope that anyone of an age to join the army would be able to seperate a video game and reality.
    If not - no loss from a darwinian perspective I guess...

  • sneetch #19 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    There's windsurfing? AND laser guided missiles? This must be the greatest job that has ever been. Sign me up!

    Unless of course the laser guided missiles are targeted at you while you're windsurfing. Although if MW2 is anything to go by I'm sure you can just leap over the missile on your surf board. ;)

  • freakzilla #20 2 years ago

    @cregtek

    Godd thing I play SOCOM then isn't it.

  • Stompy #21 2 years ago

    Here's an advert for the army:
    "Join the armed forces. Even when you go back to civvy street, your country will still look after you - a substantial number of our graduates now reside at Her Majesty's pleasure!"

    http://ww w.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24...

  • kangarootoo #22 2 years ago

    @Stompy

    I read that study a while back too. Interesting stuff (if not wholly surprising, though hindsight is good like that).

    One thing that isn't clear, and deserves more investigation if possible, is whether being in the military makes you more likely to end up in jail... or whether it is the case that the military attracts the sort of character who is more likely to end up in jail anyway (so being in the military simply delays this end).

  • kangarootoo #23 2 years ago

    @drxym

    "AA is probably one of the most realistic shooters there is. Bang, you're dead."

    Ummm, except you aren't dead are you. Not actually dead, you know, in the way you would be dead if someone really shot you dead.

    I think your comment sums up exactly the point that is being made by some here.

  • misinformed #24 2 years ago

    "The America's Army series of free-to-play shooters cum military recruitment tools has cost the American taxpayer $32.8 million over 10 years."

    Come on Eurogamer where has the professionalism gone then?
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 16:04

  • hiddenranbir #25 2 years ago

    "They understand completely their target audience"

    Too bloody right they do. People who will sign up to the military off the back of a video game, i.e. stupid people.

    Yeah, damn shame too. Forget about true patriots wanting to safeguard the honour of their nation, just want bang bang kill kill.

  • NKSR #26 2 years ago

    It's just a matter of time until gamers are controlling machines and robots on the battlefield.

    It will happen.. or it might not.

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    "wanting to safeguard the honour of their nation"

    Imho honour is one of the least valuable things to be guarding, and its certainly nothing to lose lives over. Honour is just a word, lives and freedoms are actual tangible things. I would hope that nobody is ever going to war to protect the honour of my nation, or any other.

  • greenllama88 #28 2 years ago

    I think there is a need for army recruitment adverts to be more hounest, considering the numbers been killed in the middle east at the moment. Maybe they should begin with the coffins coverd in a union jack returning home... if you still want to join the army with that at the forefront of your mind, then you have my full respect...

  • Sunyavadin #29 2 years ago

    Oh no! They're wasting 0.005% of their military budget on this bollocks!

    I think the American taxpayer really ought to be more pissed off at how much of the other 99.995% of that is being wasted (Assuming they use short scale like most Americans seem to, otherwise I'm off by 1000x and that budget's even scarier)

  • hiddenranbir #30 2 years ago

    Honour! It is what protects lives. It's why we don't carpet bomb every Afghan village and use bio-chemical weapons to flush out insurgents.
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 17:49

  • Skurmedel #31 2 years ago

    You are all wrong! The war is right here on our gaming doorstep... it's happening in the Digital Foundry comments! Why have none reported on this, it's Rwanda all over there!!!11
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/09 @ 22:44

  • drxym #32 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo Ummm, except you aren't dead are you. Not actually dead, you know, in the way you would be dead if someone really shot you dead.

    That's a weird argument since it is applicable to any kind of game. Barbie Horse Adventures? Immoral since it encourages children to use animals as slaves. Cooking Mama? Immoral since you can cook godawful food without suffering from food poisoning (and meat is murder) etc.

    Every game is immoral by some standard. The reality here is AA is an honest introduction to a career in the army - or not since the vast majority will just play it without having any inclination of getting shot at for real. It isn't immoral and neither is the thing it promotes. Every country has an army and with good reason.