It was just a matter of time, I guess. I’m out on this one. Generally, I somewhat enjoy the CoD single player but I found WWII to be incredibly boring.

Naw son. I play Call of Duty games for the campaigns. Last one I played was Modern Warfare 3 though. Infinite Warfare looks cool, might check that out when it's cheap enough.

I've only ever played the campaigns. I have less than no interest in the MP. That said I haven't played a CoD since Modern Warfare 2(?). So I'm definitely not the target market for these things anyway. But this definitely flips it from a "Maybe I'd play that someday" to a crossed-armed "NEVER".

No Mason, No Woods, No Sale

@theht: Infinite Warfare is good. It's also longer than the typical four or so hours that it takes to complete most Call of Duty games if you do the side missions. That said, I never finished it on Veteran because there are too many missions that either require or optional ones that have you flying the ship. It's not bad in and of itself, it's just I liked journeying on foot in the game more and wanted more of that from the side stuff. The ship stuff is also, though easily beatable if you stick with it, not fun enough to stick through to me. The story is decent. I also had no idea that the main protagonist and one of the writers of the game was the man of many voices in games. Brian Bloom pretty much plays Brian Bloom in Infinite Warfare though. He does many voices, like B.J. Blazkowicz, and Jackie Estacado in The Darkness 2, which are the latest games I went through again with him in it, unbeknownst to me that that was all the same person playing those characters.

Nope. The campaign - and Spec Ops, until Activision completely abandoned the mode for whatever asinine reason - was my entire interest in the Call of Duty franchise, especially Black Ops. I had some fun with Nazi Zombies and even briefly enjoyed the zombie stuff in Black Ops I, but never really considered it a selling point. And I just outright don't give a fuck about multiplayer. Across the nearly dozen Call of Duties games I've played, I doubt I've played more than thirty matches of competitive multiplayer in total. Just never enjoyed it. So, without a campaign, there's nothing there for me.

Though, to be fair, I never paid $60 for any Call of Duty game. I don't think I ever paid more than $25, because the campaign was really the thing I was interested in and, even when they're good, they're still only, at best, 8-hour campaigns. So, I was never really Activision's target market and, as such, can't really be all that upset about getting shafted.

@ntm: Ah, the ship stuff is part of the draw for me (also Jon Snow), so I might be okay with that.

Didn't remember who Brian Bloom was, but after looking up his work, yeah, dude's great. Varric in Dragon Age sticks out for me, but hell, I didn't know he was Blazkowicz. Fuckin kills it as B.J. Also, fun fact, dude voiced Kane in Kane & Lynch. Neat!

Yeah, I'll give it a go. Never been big on the single player campaigns in the first place.

@theht: Oh, yep Varric too. And interesting about Kane; now it kind of rings a bell. The ship stuff is fine, I just thought there was too much of it in Infinite Warfare. I don't watch Game of Thrones so I don't have much fervor (or whatever you want to call it) for Kit Harington being in different things, but that's not to say I dislike him. I think the villain aspect of the game was one of the least interesting aspects of the story from what I remember though; he was alright in it for what he had to work with. If you play any of the recent Call of Duty games, and for the campaign, that's definitely the one to go to.

I can't say I really care. The last Call of Duty I seriously tried to play was Modern Warfare on the Wii, and I fell off of it pretty quickly. I just feel that there are too many better shooters out there to give this franchise attention.

That being said, I know there's a bunch of people who love going through the campaigns of these things, often on launch night. For those people, I'm sorry to see it go.

If it’s cheaper i’ll jump in, i haven’t played a COD regularly since Black Ops 1! And i have a captain Price avatar! In a world where PUBG is 30 bucks, paying 60 for multiplayer only COD is silly.

No thanks. Campaigns have been the only reason for me to play these games and even with those I’ve either waited for a hefty sale or just skipped them, like with WW2.

I bought last year's CoD because I was so hopeful for an amazing ww2 campaign. I was burned and will not be buying another CoD game.

I used to like the mulitplayer a lot (MW1 & MW2), then I was burnt out completely for a few years.

Now I quite like the campaigns (Advanced Warfare & Infinite Warfare) but it's hard to justify the £60 tag on 6 hours of story.

I'd happily never play CoD again to be quite honest.

I find it weird that they would call it Black Ops IV (IIII?) and not have a campaign, especially considering that BOIII annoyed a few people by not picking up from the second game's story.

Either way, no. I like COD campaigns when I need some fairly mindless run'n'gun fun, and only manage a few matches of multiplayer before getting frustrated and giving up. That said, I agree with most people here that WWII's campaign was dire, so even if BOIV does have a story mode it'll need to be something pretty special for me to pick it up before it gets much cheaper anyway.

I love a good COD campaign and Treyarch have made some really good ones so i'd be sad, but CODWW2's multiplayer, while having lots of cool things to unlock and daily missions, isn't well balanced and fun, so i'm more than ready to leave it for BLOPS4.
However since it would lack a campaign i'd be expecting a wealth of content for the multiplayer, or a price cut, SOMETHING to justify itself, you can't release a multiplayer only COD if it's not overflowing with content.

Put me in the camp that don’t really care either way, and would still get it if it looks fun. I get most of my milage from the multiplayer and the campaigns have had theirs ups and down but they’re not really what I get those games for anymore specifically.

In the Black Ops series in particular, the thing that's always been the most interesting to me is their crazy campaigns. For other CoD's, it's less of an issue to me, but no campaign in BLOPS4 is a no go for me.

Not really surprised they're doing it; actually more surprised they didn't make this move sooner.

I've been mentally checked out of the series since MW2 (I played Advanced Warfare and liked it, but that's been the recent exception), so it doesn't matter to me what they do with it now.

Wouldn't it all depend on what they have instead? Didn't the last BLOPS not have a traditional campaign.

@thepanzini: The last Blops had two campaigns, one of them was just reskinned with zombies and monologues but it was cool for people who are into that sort of thing.

Unless they add a bunch of co-op stuff that isnt garbage, (was never a fan of zombies/aliens horde modes) and justify what will probably be a full priced game i'm gonna pass. I borrowed the last COD from a friend and it was shit so i'll happily skip this one. I'm more interested if this will even effect sales. (if true)

I play the COD campaign almost every year (skipped WWII, haven't finished Black Ops 3, but the way Jeff has talked about that makes me think I really should!) so this is disappointing. However, I do enjoy the Battle Royale genre/format of multiplayer. I think Fortnite and Radical Heights have shown that you can do interesting things by adding on to the core "100 players drop in" conceit. I'm not sure what that may be for COD if they are adding a Battle Royale mode - and who believes they aren't even if it's just rumored at this point - but I'm willing to see what it is.

A few months ago, I Saw some footage of the Chinese COD BR mode, and it looked fun. It was essentially COD Deathmatch with higher stakes. I'm not saying it was the most inventive thing in the world, but I'm willing to see where it goes.

Infinite Warfares campaign was incredibly cool. WW2 being so standard by the numbers and this game not having anything is a real bummer.

I took a bit of a sabbatical from CoD games a few years ago. After Modern Warfare 3 I dropped off the series, I still ended up getting the CoD games on PS4/Xbox One (usually at a cheaper price) which were a mixed bag in how much I liked them. Ghosts was very weak in all aspects, Advanced Warfare had a few things going for it but Black Ops 3 was the last CoD I really got stuck into the MP at similar levels to when I played CoD4/MW2. Infinite Warfare I struggled to enjoy initially but replaying the MP recently I found it better than I remembered it before and I haven't played enough WW2 to have a full opinion of it but the MP is OK from what I've played so far.

In terms of campaigns I stopped caring about them after MW3, CoD4 had a very solid campaign but after that it started to go a bit downhill with the original Black Ops being an exception to the rule as that is arguably the best in terms of single player. It doesn't take too much research to know that the main draw of CoD right now is in it's multiplayer offerings so it kinda makes sense for that to be the focus of these games. If the time that would have been spent on a campaign that the vast majority of your audience isn't going to play is instead spent on having more content for competitive MP and Zombie MP then why not?

However if Activision does want to go down that route then they have to stop the yearly release schedule. If they want Call of Duty to be regarded in a similar vein to other top multiplayer FPS's like Counter Strike, Rainbow Six Siege or Overwatch then they need to follow that format of making a good base game and adding to it with updates and new content. I do think that Activision want to push CoD more as an eSport game but that's a bit tricky if every year there is a brand new game for everyone to learn again.

Basically I don't mind CoD campaigns being dropped if the series becomes more similar to Counter Strike, otherwise give us the campaigns back!

Considering the only way I've played the last 4 CoD games was borrowing it from a friend for an afternoon, beating the campaign, and then immediately returning it, then no, I won't be playing a campaignless CoD.

Personally, I think they should put out two games. You can make your multiplayer platform that persists indefinitely, and then put out a batshit crazy full on single player game too.

I'm way more likely to try out a Call of Duty Battle Royale mode than play another campaign, honestly. That's not saying their campaigns are bad or anything it just got very samey to me.

I got WW2 and it was one of the first CODs bought in a few years. I played multiplayer right away and while it was new and full of equally poor players like me it was great. It didn't take long for me to be left behind has everyone else got much better than I care to try. I also didn't feel there was enough variety in the multiplayer. The maps were too small and everything is too fast, I felt like I was doing the same thing a dozen times in each match. When I was done with multiplayer I played through the campaign and enjoyed it. It wasn't anything great but it was fun to play through and I had good time. I was very happy with WW2, but if there isn't going to be single player I'm not buying. I likely wouldn't have gotten this years game either way, like I said I don't get the game every year. I really like COD in the sweet spot of the first month of release when everyone is playing and somewhat more equal.

I think every person I know who still plays CoD never touches the single player so they'll barely notice. I haven't kept up for a while so it doesn't really matter to me.

No, because I only play SP. Even then, I have refrained buying recent COD's. Back in the mists of time, I remember the early campaigns to be intense and engaging. Even interesting like the Russian segments. Now-days, I've learned that I like them but little, no matter how a particular Staff member may wax positive about them. Though I did all the Modern Warfare's, the last 'COD' campaign I really truly liked was Black Ops. Someday I will maybe try that Outer Space campaign, but it will be severely on sale.

So no.

@bybeach: you can get infinite warfare for a fiver these days and its got to be the best single player cod since black ops

I'll still end up buying on Day 1, like every year. I always get sucked into the hype machine, play until I prestige once, and then usually fall off. Most years I end up getting like 3 missions into the campaign and then going back to multiplayer so this doesn't affect my purchasing decision one way or the other.

I haven't bought one since the first BlackOps. My first and only Call of Duty purchase.

I would buy it without a campaign, that is not the draw there. I still think it would be good to get rid of campaigns, but not in a way like Titanfall. You have to put other stuff in to compensate, not do a meager multiplayer and than no singleplayer. Without singleplayer I also expect more multiplayer content.

Normally I would, but not on a Battlefield year.

I honestly don't know what would get me back into CoD at this point. If the multiplayer-only package only cost around 30 bucks I might pick it up out of curiosity.

@blakey1985: Well, it sure the hell isn't Steam! Once again I got reminded they are real big on charging 59.99 us. I did see physical Infinite warfare at Amazon for 15.00+ us. But interestingly enough they require steam for activation, and most negative reviews were that the codes had already been used. I will end it here, because it is not consistent with the thread, But COD seems awfully up it's own ass.

I won't, but it sure does put that rumour about SP-only MW2 into perspective.

Will it use their (or EA's) matchmaking patents? I remember them confirming that COD WWII would not. But what about BO4?

I won't be buying it without a campaign.

At 47 I don't have the reflexes to find multiplayer enjoyable anymore.

I never did go much for competitive multiplayer really. I'm more of a story man.

I've played most CODs for the campaign, but this is where I'll be parting ways with it.

Voted no. I lost interest in CoD multiplayer when Black Ops came. I was extremely high on MW2 multiplayer so after feeling disappointed by Black Ops, I gradually fell off the train. Since Ghosts, I haven’t played a multiplayer and I probably won’t especially when games like Titanfall 2, Overwatch, Siege, fuck, even Doom, felt more enjoyable.

Nope. I quite like the campaigns in the Battlefield and CoD games, with tight narrative and gameplay they are very action-movie-like, which I think is both cool and fun. It's an FPS sub-genre in itself.

I do like the campaigns and its a little sad to see it gone. However, If they really go hard and make the multiplayer really great it would be fine. Put all the extra resources into a bunch of varied weapons and maps. I have not bought/enjoyed the last few cod games multiplayer wise. Advanced warfare and Infinite warfare had fun campaigns but I did not particularly enjoy the multiplayer with all the jump jets. Didn't buy ww2 but from the 10-15 hours I played of the multiplayer I really didn't like the maps. I am not a fan of the ww1/ww2 settings cod/bf have used as well.

I have for the most part been playing the modern warfare remastered and black ops 1 multiplayer. If the new game uses that era of cod gameplay I am 100% down.

I just voluntarily watched a stream that lasted for about an hour and not a single word regarding the campaign was uttered, one way or the other.

@glots: Codblops 4 - Zombies and some other shit, I dunno.

The stuff they're doing with weapon customisation and player healing sounds neat, and the weird "Greatest Hits Island" for the battle royale could be a cool nostalgia trip, but I still just have a hard time imagining buying this when they're so many other games to play.

I really hope theres a new Halo or Titanfall at E3 this year because the current state of Battlefield and COD is pretty dire.

I understand the outcry for the lack of campaign, but the campaigns have been awful for a good while now so I can't really blame Activision for ditching them altogether. It's an unpopular opinion but I think it makes perfect sense for Activision to ditch the campaigns when clearly the vast majority care about multiplayer.

That said, I have no interest in Call of Duty whatsoever these days. It's a franchise that reeks of desperation to me.

This iteration looks particularly worrying because it seems like a mash up of a bunch of popular games, but none of the modes feel like they are going to be the central identity of this game. The multiplayer versus looks like a weird hybrid of BO3 and Overwatch. Which makes this the third entry to have essentially the same multiplayer. Zombies looks all over the place and we haven't seen enough of the Battle Royale mode to really know how it's going to be, but like they said... there's not much needed in explanation to get the gist of the mode. I'm curious to see how the time-to-kill and vehicles are going to be balanced.

It just feels like a game with an identity crisis, which gives me the feeling that many of these modes were just spit balled in a board meeting and the developers were forced to make it all fit and work somehow.

It's sad how few people got to experience the greatness that is the Infinite Warfare campaign. I think it's the best thing to ever come out of a COD game. But I'm no fan of multiplayer so I get that's very subjective.