At most the host city will benefit from some upgraded infrastructure, probably long overdue, but very rarely will the host come close to recouping the cost they have put in, and a lot of the money goes to waste, meaning that if they had spend the money purely on improving their citizens live, it would have gone much further. Supporters counter this by saying that the host will get more back in the long term from business promotion and tourism, but this claim is dubious at best, but being a very hard thing to quantify it's also impossible to refute, but considering it's mostly held in cities that are already some of the most popular tourist destination and business hubs, it's hard to see what real difference is being made.
At the end of the day, the Olympics have very successfully branded themselves as a must have event, however the only ones who really benefits are the sponsors who gets a venue where a country's normal safeguards and laws are completely nullifies, the politicians who get to stand on the grandest stage of all and proclaim how awesome they are and the of course the members of IOC who gets to take home fat bribes.
Again, fuck the Olympics. The great white elephant of the modern age.
Why would you do that?
Third, I'd be interested to see how video games are substantially different from movies and TV series in this respect. The film Song of the South (1946) was briefly available on LaserDisc in some markets. It has not since been rereleased on DVD or Blu-ray anywhere, allegedly because of a change in prevailing moral values among viewers.
Not really counter to your argument, but Song of the South was released outside the US, at least in the VHS days. I remember a promo for it on my Aladdin or Lion King tape bought in the UK when I was but a wee boy
A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. - Winston Churchill