I went back after patch 1.8.. the game is REALLY good now. So many things to do and it looks and plays beautifully.
Please don't comment on how the game was on release(yeah it had issues), it's nothing like that now. Ubi supported it and made it into an excellent game.
All they need to do is take the same gaming formula, fix the issues some people had and they'll have another success on their hands.
I played the game about a year ago on the free weekend, way to bullet spongy. I have a feeling the overly bullet sponge games are not going to do well in the future. In general they have been on a decline. If the game had more realistic weapon damage I probably would have liked it and bought it.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
I'm always surprised when companies announce sequels to their mmos WAY before release, because it effectively kills a lot of people's interest in going to the game that's currently up.
Why would I play The Division now that I know all my progress, everything I do, won't be carried over to the new game? My character I poured a ton of hours into is essentially killed off with this announcement.
I'll look forward to playing the latest and greatest Division 2, until then, see ya Division 1.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
patch 1.8 is quite nice lots of new pve content and the new monthly new content that in works looks good april 1.8.1 get launched and x box gets patched with there X patch
Here's the thing though, if the first one is so much improved, why not devote those resources for division 2 into more dlc for division 1. I mean Destiny 1 supposedly became a better game over time yet they release Destiny 2 with half of Destiny 1's improvements. Its just better to expand on what's working vs trying to get greedy with something else. Just make an expansion introducing a new city or something if anything.
@BillMurphy - high level, isn't this the same thought you had w/ Destiny 1 and Destiny 2, where you thought they should have added to D1, with all of the content that came with it, instead of starting from scratch again? What would make The Division different here?
I don't think we know enough about Division 2 to determine, but I'm guessing it'll be a whole new locale, new systems, new mechanics, etc. More than just what felt like a major expansion in the case of D2. Ubi usually goes big with sequels, not "small" as Bungie seems to have with D2.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
The first one is really fun now... but Monster Hunter World is keeping me from playing it.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
they should probably fix their current game first, but im allso interested in where and what kind of klimate and such we will be facing.
WTF are you talking about? lol Oh and there is no "K" in climate..
Ok on topic, lets hope there's some different weather in V2.0,, I get sick of feeling cold playing the current game. Oh and it looks too Christmasy !
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Ugh, this is the worst. I feel like we see this way too much. It's just an over-generalization of reality. It's like me saying that people are sheep for buying books because books are basically just the same thing, a hard cover with a bunch of pages and letters on it. Other than that, they're basically identical, just paper and words. Cars would be another great example, just some metal wrapped around an engine with wheels. Absolutely no difference from one to the other. Or how about movies? It's just the same bunch of pixels re-organized into varying lengths with some audio bytes mashed in. Right? If you think that sounds ridiculous, then I don't know how you could honestly believe what you wrote.
They have worked at making the original game good. I still don't trust the way the game is built. I watched enough of the streams to see how badly at how Massive did things. I don't trust them. I hate that I will miss some pre-order goodies if I ever play it.
I personally think that Survival mode was the best thing done in the game. Massive is happy to laugh and joke about broken things that people figure out while saying it is their fault for letting it happen. It is what ruined the game for me. I hope they create a great game but I won't be there for the start if ever.
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Ugh, this is the worst. I feel like we see this way too much. It's just an over-generalization of reality. It's like me saying that people are sheep for buying books because books are basically just the same thing, a hard cover with a bunch of pages and letters on it. Other than that, they're basically identical, just paper and words. Cars would be another great example, just some metal wrapped around an engine with wheels. Absolutely no difference from one to the other. Or how about movies? It's just the same bunch of pixels re-organized into varying lengths with some audio bytes mashed in. Right? If you think that sounds ridiculous, then I don't know how you could honestly believe what you wrote.
To be fair, reusing digital art assets costs much, much, much less (relative to potential revenue) than authoring and printing a new book, even a sequel. Same with movies, unless you're talking specifically with CGI only movies. Cars, too.
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Ugh, this is the worst. I feel like we see this way too much. It's just an over-generalization of reality. It's like me saying that people are sheep for buying books because books are basically just the same thing, a hard cover with a bunch of pages and letters on it. Other than that, they're basically identical, just paper and words. Cars would be another great example, just some metal wrapped around an engine with wheels. Absolutely no difference from one to the other. Or how about movies? It's just the same bunch of pixels re-organized into varying lengths with some audio bytes mashed in. Right? If you think that sounds ridiculous, then I don't know how you could honestly believe what you wrote.
To be fair, reusing digital art assets costs much, much, much less (relative to potential revenue) than authoring and printing a new book, even a sequel. Same with movies, unless you're talking specifically with CGI only movies. Cars, too.
I agree, but there are things like cinematics, new zones, new story, updated tech, etc. Yes, they have a framework that they can build off of, which will hopefully require minimal updates to be re-used, but that's also reflected in the quicker turnaround time on sequels, too.
Here's another question, these are not small teams, so why would they not be putting out a new game every year if they could, if it was that simple? The implication is that the company is paying these people to sit around with their thumb up their ass for a year while they ride out the current release. COD is such a great example of how long it takes to make a sequel. They DO have a new version every year, but they alternate between two different dev shops. Why? Well... Probably because 2 years is about as quick a turnaround as you can expect to do with a new, high fidelity game.
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Ugh, this is the worst. I feel like we see this way too much. It's just an over-generalization of reality. It's like me saying that people are sheep for buying books because books are basically just the same thing, a hard cover with a bunch of pages and letters on it. Other than that, they're basically identical, just paper and words. Cars would be another great example, just some metal wrapped around an engine with wheels. Absolutely no difference from one to the other. Or how about movies? It's just the same bunch of pixels re-organized into varying lengths with some audio bytes mashed in. Right? If you think that sounds ridiculous, then I don't know how you could honestly believe what you wrote.
Yeah because books are all sequels to each others.
I had a coworker who bought one game per year, alternating between COD and Battlefield release. He never played anything else, never bothered trying anything else.
What RemyVorender suggested is actually accurate, they could make new stories, content, models, alter-modes added for years for The Division (1)...yet instead of planning for that Ubisoft was already working on The Division 2 within one month of the first game release and they did that because they know that the majority of The Division 1 buyers are going to buy the sequel at full price instead of boycotting it and asking to get new content in The Division 1.
I didn't get the game when it first came out but a free weekend after they had improved some things got me to buy it. They have really listened to a lot of their player base and made good improvements. The latest update is good as I noticed the NPCs hear the firefights from a greater distance and will try to flank you as they come in to help the others out. Only problem I have with the game now is I can't just hop in and out for a short session as one thing leads to another and the next thing I know two or three hours have passed. Fun tactical shooter.
That said I'm looking forward to D2, especially if it's in a different city and country.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Its kind of ironic that its only now that The Division is now in a reasonable state that it can be considered to be a 'decent' enough game, that they are going to make a sequel, why? if they really want to make some money i think they would have been better off just making more content/expansions for the original game. If the Division 2 is of the same calibre as Destiny 2, then it will fail hard, Destiny 2 is irredeemable, it would be a shame if the same thing happened to The Division 2.
Maybe make the first game better, rather than releasing a 'new' game every 2-3 years? Just a thought.
That's the "game-as-a-service" model:
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Ugh, this is the worst. I feel like we see this way too much. It's just an over-generalization of reality. It's like me saying that people are sheep for buying books because books are basically just the same thing, a hard cover with a bunch of pages and letters on it. Other than that, they're basically identical, just paper and words. Cars would be another great example, just some metal wrapped around an engine with wheels. Absolutely no difference from one to the other. Or how about movies? It's just the same bunch of pixels re-organized into varying lengths with some audio bytes mashed in. Right? If you think that sounds ridiculous, then I don't know how you could honestly believe what you wrote.
Yeah because books are all sequels to each others.
I had a coworker who bought one game per year, alternating between COD and Battlefield release. He never played anything else, never bothered trying anything else.
What RemyVorender suggested is actually accurate, they could make new stories, content, models, alter-modes added for years for The Division (1)...yet instead of planning for that Ubisoft was already working on The Division 2 within one month of the first game release and they did that because they know that the majority of The Division 1 buyers are going to buy the sequel at full price instead of boycotting it and asking to get new content in The Division 1.
Hence sheep.
Sooooo, you're suggesting that the Harry Potter books should have followed some other characters? Listen, I'm not suggesting that some of these games aren't predictable, but I am saying that if you think that these games aren't thought out, then you're fucking insane. When WoW Warlords of Draenor released, they said that they had 10 years of content planned already. That doesn't mean that WoW is just spitting out the same content, nor does it mean that those who play are sheep. It simply means that some people enjoy that lore. Same goes for COD. I actually played all COD games up until Advanced Warfare and I enjoyed them for what they were. I never bought any DLC, but I am more than willing to buy a game that provides me with a new story, or an extension of an ongoing saga.
Again, the fact that they started working on The Division 2 immediately after The Division 1 only means that they have a detailed project plan for the FRANCHISE. Trust me, they didn't just say a week after "Hey, it seems to be doing good, let's cook something up!" If you honestly believe that, I.... I can't even.
Your expectation is that their 5 or 10 year plan for The Division should be included in one box price? HA!!! That, son, is a shining example of why people believe millenials are entitled. Oh! And PLEASE don't tell me that if they offered a subscription in exchange for all the content you'd pay it, because you know that's a lie. If you have a problem paying $60 every 2 years for a game, why the fuck would you spend $180 a year for a game that simply gets updated with content continuously? Easy, you won't.
Making any new content/trying to build onto the current division would be a waste. The games reputation is already beyond repair. The game has improved tons since launch..but people never give games a 2nd chance and just assume it will always be bad. It's the same with no mans sky, game has improved alot since launch but everyone still bad mouths it.
Comments
So many things to do and it looks and plays beautifully.
Please don't comment on how the game was on release(yeah it had issues), it's nothing like that now. Ubi supported it and made it into an excellent game.
All they need to do is take the same gaming formula, fix the issues some people had and they'll have another success on their hands.
..Cake..
--John Ruskin
Why would I play The Division now that I know all my progress, everything I do, won't be carried over to the new game? My character I poured a ton of hours into is essentially killed off with this announcement.
I'll look forward to playing the latest and greatest Division 2, until then, see ya Division 1.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
moo all
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
WTF are you talking about? lol Oh and there is no "K" in climate..
Ok on topic, lets hope there's some different weather in V2.0,, I get sick of feeling cold playing the current game. Oh and it looks too Christmasy !
1. release a game with box price and a cash shop
2. make it look like you are committed to update the game so players don't all leave after 1 month and continue spend $$ on it
3. once revenue start to fall below X announce a sequel
4. return to point #1 and profit
The whole thing is based on gamers being sheeps who are going to continue buying the same game over and over again at full price. They gain nothing by making the first game better, they just lose money that way.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I personally think that Survival mode was the best thing done in the game. Massive is happy to laugh and joke about broken things that people figure out while saying it is their fault for letting it happen. It is what ruined the game for me. I hope they create a great game but I won't be there for the start if ever.
I agree, but there are things like cinematics, new zones, new story, updated tech, etc. Yes, they have a framework that they can build off of, which will hopefully require minimal updates to be re-used, but that's also reflected in the quicker turnaround time on sequels, too.
Here's another question, these are not small teams, so why would they not be putting out a new game every year if they could, if it was that simple? The implication is that the company is paying these people to sit around with their thumb up their ass for a year while they ride out the current release. COD is such a great example of how long it takes to make a sequel. They DO have a new version every year, but they alternate between two different dev shops. Why? Well... Probably because 2 years is about as quick a turnaround as you can expect to do with a new, high fidelity game.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I had a coworker who bought one game per year, alternating between COD and Battlefield release. He never played anything else, never bothered trying anything else.
What RemyVorender suggested is actually accurate, they could make new stories, content, models, alter-modes added for years for The Division (1)...yet instead of planning for that Ubisoft was already working on The Division 2 within one month of the first game release and they did that because they know that the majority of The Division 1 buyers are going to buy the sequel at full price instead of boycotting it and asking to get new content in The Division 1.
Hence sheep.
That said I'm looking forward to D2, especially if it's in a different city and country.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Sooooo, you're suggesting that the Harry Potter books should have followed some other characters? Listen, I'm not suggesting that some of these games aren't predictable, but I am saying that if you think that these games aren't thought out, then you're fucking insane. When WoW Warlords of Draenor released, they said that they had 10 years of content planned already. That doesn't mean that WoW is just spitting out the same content, nor does it mean that those who play are sheep. It simply means that some people enjoy that lore. Same goes for COD. I actually played all COD games up until Advanced Warfare and I enjoyed them for what they were. I never bought any DLC, but I am more than willing to buy a game that provides me with a new story, or an extension of an ongoing saga.
Again, the fact that they started working on The Division 2 immediately after The Division 1 only means that they have a detailed project plan for the FRANCHISE. Trust me, they didn't just say a week after "Hey, it seems to be doing good, let's cook something up!" If you honestly believe that, I.... I can't even.
Your expectation is that their 5 or 10 year plan for The Division should be included in one box price? HA!!! That, son, is a shining example of why people believe millenials are entitled. Oh! And PLEASE don't tell me that if they offered a subscription in exchange for all the content you'd pay it, because you know that's a lie. If you have a problem paying $60 every 2 years for a game, why the fuck would you spend $180 a year for a game that simply gets updated with content continuously? Easy, you won't.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
This time I won't be buying it early at a discount, like I did the first one. Going to wait and see how the reviews are.