It does matter because single player is expensive to make. If you can skip it, you can cut costs significantly and still make a lot of money.

Yes, it is expensive to make. But so what?
If it is drawing in millions of extra gamers, then those costs are covered, making the issue entirely inconsequential.

But by removing it... Those that buy the games for the single player component may not buy the game, will not try the multiplayer, will not engage with the Microtransactions and other aspects.

It's like my local service station... My Vehicle is dual fuel, I primarily run LPG with Petrol as the secondary fuel.
They stopped selling LPG, citing lack of sales as they were only breaking even on it... Unfortunately that means I had to go elsewhere, which also meant that they missed out on Petrol, Food, Drink sales as well.

The result is... They have started to struggle even more, reducing hours, wages (I know everyone that works there) and so on. Why? Because they drove customers that were attracted for one product away that might have purchased other products.

Call of Duty is stupidly profitable anyway, Costs shouldn't even be an excuse leveraged.

Not buying this shit without a SP component for sure (then again, didn't buy the two most recent COD's anyway).

If this is real, there must be a lot of tension in the team now. 5 months and needs to change the multiplayer, which is the base of the game?

Sounds really like hell to them.

Most of those people play COD for multiplayer like I said before. Very few play it for the single player. If they can devote their time on making a better multiplayer the end result will drive more sales and more microtransactions. Especially if they add a pubg mode. If only 20% beat the game yet you are spending millions on making the campaign. That is dumb. GAAS should be every companies goal because that's where the future market is heading. AAA single player doesn't make nearly as much money as multiplayer and much harder to maintain especially due to series fatigue. 

Irrelevant.

As a %. Sure. But millions do buy and play the game for just the singleplayer component. - Did you not bother to do the math?

This is Activision we are talking about.
Not only is it Activision, but it's Call of Duty.

If you think the Multiplayer component will see a marked increase in quality by abolishing the single player component... Well. I think you should have your standards lowered so as to avoid disappointment.

Also, the last thing the gaming world needs is more Microtransactions.

So now we are delving into hypotheticals?

They are making more money than they are spending. I think that is ultimately the crux of the issue you seem to be ignoring here.

When a single player AAA game is great and is available on every platform, it sells. *cough*Skyrim*cough*.

1. How many people play COD and don't touch the multiplayer? A small number I can guarantee. Probably less than 10%.

2. The multiplayer can be improved and they have a lot of competition so they need to be on their A game constantly. COD multiplayer is good currently, just needs to improve.

3. This whole no single player is hypothetical  as well. However, I can almost guarantee Activision is looking into a pubg mode.

4. They can probably profit even more without a single player. Look at Pubg and fortnite.

5. Yes Skyrim did well in 2011. However, this is 2018. I know time flies. Everyone wants to be the next fortnite, pubg, league of legends, ect. The money you make on microtransactions and all you have to do is update the game is great for business.

Disappointing, I'm really digging WW2 and was hoping Treyarchs game would be more in line with Blops 1 and 2. I really dislike jet pack CODs. I hope Sledgehammer supports WW2 with a year 2 season or something.

Again. Irrelevant.

It is Call of Duty. Activision not only has the funds to finance the game... But they also have the resources to build said game.
No need for excuses like "More resources spent on Multi". - It's not going to happen. Activision will just keep laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm aware.

Are you saying that potentially millions of gamers opening their wallets for the single player component isn't worth it?
I think you need to think on this a bit more to come to an appropriate conclusion.

So... If Bethesda was to hypothetically release a new Elder Scrolls game, it will potentially sell less than Skyrim? Is that the message you are trying to convey here?

I actually am pretty hyped up for the game. They're trying something super different and I like it. Changing up the multiplayer formula is what COD needed and it's delivering on that. I'm more curious now about this COD than any COD before.

My only gripe is why name it Black Ops 4? That makes no sense.

Playing the campaign contributes to around less than 5% of my total gameplay time in any COD, so to me a campaign is insignificant when the multiplayer is what brings me back. A COD campaign is a forgettable popcorn flick to me, it's fun to watch but it's not memorable.

If they want to redefine and change up their multiplayer formula that has grown stale over the years at the expense of removing the campaign, I'm all for it but naming it Black Ops 4 is just weird.

I really want them to deliver on some good maps, because WW2 does not have good ones at all, functional, sure, but they aren't that great.

At least one map is confirmed though and that is Nuketown. I'm also curious if the game is going to have a huge jump in visual quality.