Here's the official announcement. I didn't play much of The Division; I had a lot of issues with it when I tried it during one of the free weekends. I suspect that, like Watchdogs 2, it just has issues with having second monitors on while you play it. But I'm looking forward to the sequel. Honestly I'm looking forward to the second wave of these recent Ubisoft games; Wildlands 2 should hopefully be a good improvement as well.

We're thrilled to announce that we are working on Tom Clancy's The Division 2, and that development will be led by Massive Entertainment in collaboration with Ubisoft Reflections, Red Storm Entertainment, Ubisoft Annecy, Ubisoft Shanghai and Ubisoft Bucharest. The Division 2 will be powered by an updated version of the Snowdrop engine that enables us to realize our ambitions for the sequel, but more importantly, we're also taking everything we learned over the past two years and applying it towards the sequel to make sure we get it right.

I put over 400 hours into the first game and got every single trophy in it. The Developers are so anti-player I will never buy a game they make again. Everytime a new meta is discovered it was instantly nerfed while other exploits were ignored. The PvP in this game was seriously broke and loot tables atrocious. They constantly changed game systems every patch so your entire loadout you spent dozens of hour grinding the gear for was instantly nullifed. It drove me up the wall how many times your gear became irrelevant because they didn't like the fact one weapon was being used to much. Not because it was OP, but because they wanted everyone to use every weapon.

I loved the setting and premise and the single player was fun (for how short it was) but the emphasis on multiplayer is what killed it for me.

@puchiko: This is the kind of game I would probably only play in single-player or co-op. I don't really do much PVP so as long as the other modes of the game are decent I suspect I'll be happy. But I might still wait for a demo or free weekend before taking the plunge, I guess.

Very exited about this news! Even though it's not surprising that Ubisoft has been working on The Division 2.

Even though Division 1 was disappointing in terms of engaging endgame content, Ubisoft has mostly fixed that by now. But it's too late for a lot of people who have moved on, or people who still have lackluster impressions before the implemented improvements.

Ubisoft said you will be able to import your Division 1 character into the sequel. I'm wondering if it carries over your level and gear, or if it's only importing cosmetic items. I hope this gets clarified well before the release of Division 2, because I kind of want to go back to Division 1 to build up my character with all the stuff I want to import.

I bought the game mostly to play solo but the single player stuff was so slim. The story could be beat in about 5 hours and after that there wasn't much to do. Nearly all the DLC was multiplayer focused and co-op non-existent. I would wait for this game on a sale if single player is what you are interested it.

Nice. I... hope it's good! I played over 80 hours of the first despite only playing it solo. I went back to it a couple of months ago due to all its updates it had gotten and just wanted to check it out. I had a lot of fun going back. It was probably my favorite game above all else in 2016 despite the issues I had with it, which is its pretty uninteresting, repetitive side content and it being always online. I thought they did some interesting stuff with the story for the type of game it is, but wish they went even deeper. I loved the third-person shooter gameplay, the setting, and soundtrack which helped launch it to my favorite game of 2016. I'm interested to see where two goes. Unfortunately, I am guessing they're not going to make the game as I'd hope, which is to make the story more pronounced and allow time for characters to be fleshed out and worth caring about. I also wish they didn't make it always online. Still, I will be looking into this one.

There's a lot of potential in a Division sequel. The team learned a lot and fixed so many problems over the last 2 years, the game is really good now. For all the lack of end game content the Division had, just roaming around New York was really immersive. I feel like I got my moneys worth after hitting the level cap, even though I know a lot of people wanted more from it.

I'll be interested in where they take us in this game (design wise) , and how they'll build upon the previous game. Maybe more survival game mechanics, dealing with the virus or having more interaction with the dark zone.

The Division 2: Long Division.

I only recently jumped into The Division, and I enjoyed playing it a lot. There's a lot of potential for them to grow and improve even further with a full sequel, but they'll have to avoid the potential landmines that Destiny, Battlefront 2, and others have been falling on top of lately.

Wonder what the odds are it launches with a battle royal mode?

@oursin_360 said:

That survival mode they added later to the first game was already kind of like a battle royale mode, the environmental stuff being the main difference.

I hope they take The Division (which by all accounts is in a pretty damn great place right now) and intelligently evolve it into The Division 2. If they pull a Bungie (develop Destiny into something great, scrap it all and start over, and then half-ass Destiny 2) I'll be quite miffed.

I know people have praising The Division for where it ended up but I just don't see it. For me, the main issue was always that the shooting felt like crap in the end game and they never addressed it. Instead of implementing new mechanics or throwing more enemies at you to boost the difficulty, everything just takes forever to kill. The trashiest of trash mobs can take an entire magazine to the face before going down. This doesn't make for a compelling, sustainable gameplay experience. You never feel powerful, you just feel like you're tickling these unresponsive enemies to death so you can get more very same-y Diablo style loot. Pair that with the very underwhelming abilities they also never fixed, added to or improved in a meaningful way, and you get a pretty weak core gameplay experience.

Fixing that core gameplay experience is going to be a huge challenge for the Division 2. I hope they manage to do it because more competition in that space would be great. I'm just not sure they're even aware of these issues. Anyone who's been following the messaging aware if they ever talked about the unsatisfying feel of PvE in the end game or the poor ability selection as problems they know of and are working on?

Man, the division had so much potential. I wanted it to basically be a persistent, urban PUBG. Not a shooter MMORPG that handles about like every other MMORPG with shooting.

@pyrodactyl: The thing is The Division is an RPG first and a shooter second. So the game was never going to “fix” parts of the shooting you didn’t enjoy because it isn’t that type of game.

@toysoldier83: then why is the loot so same-y and the abilities so boring and unsatisfying? I find this RPG vs shooter argument to be a false dichotomy. You can have deep interesting RPG mechanics and gameplay that feels good. The Division has neither. It's shallow and plays bad. If they don't address those problems they won't be able to peek the interest of most people who are asking for more than a meaningless loot slot machine.

I think this might be my least favorite game that I played a lot of. I think the setting really hooked me, and I can be a sucker for making my character look fly. But playing this was consistently pretty terrible. I think trying to do the sort of RPG mechanic in a realistic setting with guns is just wholly unsatisfying. Maybe there's a way to do it right, but when I point blank shoot somebody through their Oakley's, their ass should go down. I don't care if they're the leader of six gangs. The more I progressed and ventured into higher level areas the more my patience wore thin on watching dudes in puff jackets run through assault rifle fire.

I'm hesitantly looking forward to this. I enjoyed the first one, but without having people to play with, I felt like I had a lesser experience.
I also felt like it got pretty repetitive after a couple hours and made it a bit of a slog to finish.

Despite being really excited for a persistent action RPG set in NYC, nothing about this game hooked me. Played it coop for a while with a friend after picking it up on sale. I'd like to believe they'll make it more compelling on the second try, but reading the comments in this thread, I have my doubts this is the developer to do it.

Anyone else find it odd they announced this as a press release? Maybe it's to early in development to show a trailer, but why announce so soon?

As someone who missed the Division 1 train, I am very interested to give this one a go!

I think the problem with The Division for me was that the gunplay just felt really unsatisfying. There's definitely a way for modern-shooter RPGs to work. Just look at something like Borderlands where there's a lot of reaction to bullet impact on enemies. Stuff breaks or they stagger a little bit, which makes it satisfying despite the health bars present. Most enemies in The Division take the full impact of a shotgun with little to no reaction.

The other problem was despite a really cool premise, they seemed to struggle what story they wanted to tell. Some parts felt like "Escape from New York" and others felt like your typical encounters with Tom Clancy paramilitary baddies.

Also the emphasis on co-op was pretty obnoxious for this game... at least at launch, I don't know if that changed. Overall, if they had tried just making a solid single player third person shooter instead of a co-op rpg loot game, I think I would have enjoyed this a lot more. I doubt we're going to get that though. They have a niche audience and if they can do slight changes to get new players or those from similar games to buy this at launch, they'll be happy.

Destiny 1 had some problems, but it felt like it was worth $60 unlike Destiny 2 and especially Destiny 1. None of these types of games are good at story, so I'm not sure why anyone expected or hoped that would be the case here (Borderlands 1 and Destiny 1 never even tried). It was lacking endgame content but the devs fixed that. Stuff like survival was a great addition too. I can see why some people didn't like the shooting, it's pretty RPGish. I think the shooting needs to be more like Wildlands and there should be drivable vehicles too. They were straightforward and it was obvious that this was a co-op focused series so I dont see the problem there.

I actually found the Division quite fun. The single-player-ish capeign was well done with a decent story; and despite what people think the "promise" of teaming up with friends or stranger in teh Dark Zone actually worked out well early on. I think the REAL issue with developers got trapped into a bad cycle of the gaming being too hard and then boosting weapons damage instead of tuning down HP on enemies. ( The enemies were bullet sponges aso the developer mad the bullets take off more damage instead of just giving the enemies less "Hit Points".) Once They made that mistake and compelend it with their wrong headed fix, the game just could not be balanced for multiplayer in any meaningful way. If a new player can unloading full clip into a veterans chest and have ZERO effect that is and issue. Even in call of Duty dumping a pistol ito the best of even the best player will take them down....that why people still play those game... they work.

There were of course the socio-economic issues in teh game presented with out and adaque view of the situation, but whatever the depth of teh story and who was the "bad guys" is a tough issue to balance in a game like this. Are all armed looters bad? Does it depend on what are they looting and why? Are looter merely that taht are left behind because their government abandoned them? WHich warlords do you support? That woudl have been questions the game could have easily if thoughtfully talked about. If we can talk about the US Army supporting some "strong men" or "warlords" in Afghanistan and Iraq than why not here...newsflash the US Government makes deal with warlords they don't just shoot everyone with a gun in a lawless country if they want to get anywhere. It suffices to say that game should have been more nuanced even if that didn't see "Yay, rah-rah...Team-American...F__k Yeah!"

The bottom line: The Division was good in the campaign. It could have been tuned better for PvP multiplayer and for the highest end PvE encounters because of the bullet sponge issue. Yet I played a few hundred house of teh game and played many co-op mission with lots of people I didn't know...I had fun. I even had fun withy the early Dark Zone antics that were just as fun and crazy with double crossing as Ubi hinted at trying to make. It was possible to go in teh Dark Zone and have a rotten time too...but it had to balance a game where you CAN double cross you own team. "Such is life/c'est la vie" as they French would say.

LOVE the Division - but I have a list of demands:

1. Different location, not in the winter, and definitely NOT during the holidays. Call me crazy but I just can't play a game set at Christmas in the middle of July.

2. Different, less morally-ambiguous enemies (like some have already mentioned)

3. More MMO-ish in terms of seeing other players in the world

4. Better/ completely redesigned Dark Zone

Hahaha, most of the reason I love this game is because of its winter New York setting, but didn't play it in summertime either.

I sure do hope it’s a lot easier to play solo. It was kind of a miserable mess when they decided to implement auto leveling.

I solo'd the first one and actually had a great time. I really enjoy the shooting mechanics and weapon customization, but the late game destiny "esque" replaying of chapters had me drop off. I did have some fun in the dark zone with rando's but it wasn't enough of a good time to keep me coming back.

The DLC was great supposedly, but coming back to a game like that after a long hiatus is really difficult to me. It makes me want to just start over and I didn't have the time.

So hell yeah Division 2!

Apparently they've got over 1000 people on this. Not that more money makes a better game, but interesting to see that they appear to be going all in on this.

I played The Division for like 90 hours in the first month, then maybe 20 since then. The changes and additions to the game post release seem pretty cool. I have complaints about Ubi and the game, but they support the shit out of their games. I'm optimistic about a sequel.

I hear the complaints about the shooting, but it's not a shooter to me. It's no different than lobbing multiple fireballs at a dude or slashing them 20 times with a sword. This game happens to use guns, but it's no more or less jarring to me. My main complaint is that I want more interesting mechanics in boss fights. I'm okay dumping 1000 bullets into a dude, but I want a bit more of a gimmick for the major fights than just shooting and taking cover. Make me hit some switches, manage adds, ect. Destiny failed at this too, but I consider that a shooter over RPG, where The Division is more RPG than shooter. Even Borderlands (the best looter shooters) is a shooter first. I think of Division bullets as auto attacks with like a sword in WoW.

My main wish for the sequel is simply more interesting boss encounters.

As much as I played and enjoyed the first game, it could have been better in pretty much every way. I'm intrigued by a sequel.

I feel like Destiny has the market covered for ridiculous sci-fi firefights and bullet-spongy foes. I'd like to see The Division 2 focus more on realism. Not ArmA realism, but the wacky Clancy realism.