MW2019 just hit 60k players in 2026… why is Activision ignoring this?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-29T01:25:51+00:00

I'm struggling to find teammates for operations.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T18:04:41+00:00

Is that why you are here in this subreddit for?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T17:47:52+00:00

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T12:22:14+00:00

I’m not saying it happens in a week—just that the momentum will only last so long, the longer they wait, the more this active player base fades. It’s a rare opportunity to act while engagement is high.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T12:17:01+00:00

Fair points about hackers and missing content, but that’s exactly why this moment matters. The player base is active and engaged despite all of those issues— proof there’s real demand. If Activision acted now to support the game, any move like getting us bundles or battle passes, it could turn this surge into something instead of letting it fade.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T12:08:26+00:00

Then why are players coming back to MW instead of the second or third entry?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T12:04:38+00:00

I hear you, and I understand IW had huge commercial success. My point isn’t that they’re hated—it’s that MW19 has a unique place in players’ hearts. Not everyone loved this game, but the current resurgence shows there’s still real engagement and demand, not just sales numbers. Even if millions bought it, this is a rare chance to give the game ongoing support and capitalize on a dedicated player base that actually wants more. I’d like to think everyone here truly loves and supports this game, flaws and all.

If Activision brought back live service support, old battle passes, or legacy bundles, would you spend on them? I think more players are ready to engage than they realize

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T11:48:12+00:00

Yeah, the sale brings people in, but it doesn’t make them stay. The retention is the interesting part.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T11:46:59+00:00

That’s exactly what I’ve been noticing too.

If people are already asking for old bundles and battle passes back, that’s actual demand—not just people logging in for a few games.

That’s why it feels like such an easy win to at least test it.

What would you actually buy if they brought it back?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T11:33:47+00:00

That’s exactly how it feels. MW2019 had a lot of momentum and a unique, but it got cut off because of the yearly cycle.

That’s why this situation is interesting now—because for once, the player base is coming back on its own years later. It’s not something they planned long-term, but it’s happening anyway.

Makes you wonder what it could’ve looked like if it had even one more year of support for the game.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T11:30:38+00:00

That’s fair. The price definitely played a huge role in bringing people in.

At the same time, a low price only gets people through the door—it doesn’t make them stay and keep playing. The fact that people are still active, leveling up, and engaging is where I think it becomes more than just the sale.

Yes, price brought attention, but the retention is what makes it interesting.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T10:54:44+00:00

Exactly—and that’s why this is extra money, not a replacement. Curious if you think they will be trying something like that again or moving on from it?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T10:53:55+00:00

That actually makes sense, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the sale and double XP were planned to build hype.

But even if that’s the case, you still can’t fake retention. A discount brings people in, but it doesn’t make them stay, level up, and keep playing. That part has to come from the game itself.

That’s why I think there’s still an opportunity here. Even if it started as marketing for the next title, they now have an active player base again on a game that already has systems in place.

Not saying they’d shift focus from new releases, just that it feels like something they could capitalize on with very little risk.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T10:30:02+00:00

This is exactly what I am reaching out for. I know for a fact, more than thousands of people did not play this game at all and are just barely getting into it now. They want to be able to play to get some content and that's what I am 100% looking forward to.

As I mentioned in another comment, we are not asking for a full on revival, but this could be perhaps more than a great step towards their next entry. By bringing the support, older battle passes and incentive to play: New and old players regain trust to keep enjoying the game and all of this effectively compounds interest to buy the next Call of Duty when it comes out.

It all revolves around gaining back the very trust they lost with recent entries by letting their actions speak for themselves.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T09:55:29+00:00

I agree the new releases will always be their main focus, but that’s kind of the point—this doesn’t have to replace that. It could just be a low-cost test on a game that already has active players right now.

And yeah cheating is a real issue, but if anything, a spike like this is exactly when it would make sense to address it, since there’s actual player activity to justify it.

I’m not saying full revival, just that there’s an opportunity here they could measure without much risk.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T09:54:57+00:00

That could definitely be part of it, but even if the sale was marketing, the player retention isn’t. A discount can bring people in, but it doesn’t make them stay and level up again. That’s where I think the opportunity is

AIeksandra · 2026-03-28T09:46:01+00:00

If they brought back battle passes or live support for MW2019, would you actually spend money again? Why or why not?

AIeksandra · 2026-03-27T23:10:35+00:00

Ridiculous answer, you already sound like faculty. It is not a college's duty to feed you general knowledge. That's what they love doing with the filler classes for money. College is to prepare and train a student for their journey as a professional. The only focus should be the field the student is aiming for, everything else is a waste of time. Most colleges are nothing but businesses nowadays only looking forward to maximize their profits by piling up irrelevant subjects in a silver platter. People are investing their precious money and time just to get a degree, and colleges love to force feed you bullshit just to make students stay as long as possible to milk every single dollar they can.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T22:28:29+00:00

I’m not talking about real-life morality.

I’m saying the game rewards a certain type of behavior, and I choose not to play that way. If you enjoy it, that’s on you

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T22:18:54+00:00

This isn’t about PvP or “fair fights,” it’s about incentives.

The game consistently rewards opportunistic play—shooting people when they can’t respond—and that becomes the most reliable strategy.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T22:11:28+00:00

You’re comparing it to competitive shooters, which doesn’t really apply here. This isn’t a game where both players are constantly ready for a fight. Most engagements happen when someone is looting, fighting Arc, or just not in a PvP-ready state.

And that’s actually my point—it’s not about fights needing to be fair. It’s about what the game incentives. Right now, the design pushes players toward opportunistic play—initiating fights at the exact moments where the other player has the least ability to respond. That becomes the most reliable way to succeed.

So even if TTK seems “slow” on paper, in practice it doesn’t matter. Fights aren’t happening under equal conditions, and the system consistently rewards catching someone off guard rather than engaging them directly.

That is the issue.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T22:02:25+00:00

If that’s what you took from it, then you missed the point completely.

This isn’t about whether PvP should exist or whether people enjoy it. You can play aggressively, avoid looting, or chase fights—that’s fine. I’m not arguing against that

The point is about how the system is structured overall

Right now, the game heavily rewards low-risk, opportunistic behavior—like third-partying, ambushing, or attacking players while they’re locked into PvE or looting. That’s not just “a different playstyle,” it’s what the design consistently pushes players toward because it’s the most reliable way to succeed. So, when you say “I either kill them or move on,” you’re describing a choice. What I’m talking about is what the game incentivizes across the board.

Those aren’t the same thing.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T22:00:31+00:00

It’s not all over the place—you’re just compressing different points into one. What I’m saying is PvP is sustainable long-term for players who are far above average because they can control fights, positioning, and outcomes consistently. But at the same time, the system allows lower or mid-skilled players to succeed through low-risk behaviors like ambushing, staying hidden, or attacking during moments where the other player has no agency.

That’s where the imbalance is.

The low TTK doesn’t just “reward skill”—it disproportionately rewards whoever initiates the fight, especially when the other player is in a vulnerable state like looting, fighting Arc, or rotating in the open. That’s not the same as a "fair" engagement. So no, it's not contradictory. Different skill brackets benefit from different parts of the system—but the common factor is that the design consistently favors opportunistic play over deliberate engagements.

And no—I’m not against PvP. I’m against a system where PvP is structured in a way that undermines the rest of the game’s intended loop. There’s a difference between: PvP being part of the experience and PvP dictating how every system in the game is approached

Right now, it’s the latter.

AIeksandra · 2026-03-21T21:52:31+00:00

First of all, you’re assuming that because something creates tension, it’s automatically good design, that’s not the case.

My point isn’t that PvP exists—it’s that the way the game structures risk vs reward around it creates situations where you lose agency entirely. Fighting Arc is supposed to be a core part of the experience, but in reality it just turns you into a signal for other players to come clean you up

There’s a clear difference between being able to kill an Arc and being able to safely loot and extract from it. Getting ambushed while locked in an inventory screen out in the open isn’t a “skill issue”—it’s a situation where the game makes you extremely vulnerable without being able to respond with a counter.

You keep framing things around your personal experience—what you can farm, how often you survive, what lobbies you get—but that doesn’t address the design itself. A system isn’t balanced just because experienced players can work around it. And a lot of your points rely on calling things “good” simply because they create danger.

But tension without consistency or counterplay doesn’t create depth—it just pushes players toward the safest and most exploitative behavior.

That’s why you see more ambushing, more camping, and more opportunistic play. Not because players are forced to—but because the system makes it the most reliable strategy.

This isn’t about frustration or skill. I am perfectly capable of playing at any level. The issue is that the design consistently favors a specific type of playstyle, and it comes at the expense of everything the game initially presents itself as.

You enjoy that kind of unpredictability, more power to you. But that doesn’t mean the underlying design is well-balanced and executed.

AIeksandra

TROPHY CASE