I feel that there are four main varieties of games in this regard:
- Games that are most enjoyable in single-player mode, or do not have multi-player at all. (The Legend of Zelda, Portal, etc.)
- Games that are fun in single-player, but are generally more fun to play with friends. (Mario Kart (in spite of the blue shells), etc.)
- Games that are mostly about the single-player mode until you beat the main story, then shift focus to multiplayer for some reason. (Pokemon, etc.)
- Games that are mostly about the multi-player experience. (Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, etc.)
The way I see it, there was a heavy focus on the first two varieties in gaming's early years (arcade machines aside), and that balance has shifted as online gaming became more feasible and popular. Now, some generations of gamers are apparently being raised entirely on the concept of the latter two - especially in regards to online multiplayer, rather than a local gathering. I feel we are becoming more "social" even as we physically separate, and companies of all sorts are attempting to capitalize on that.
With that said: to put it bluntly, I feel that Antonsson's quote is a bunch of bull. Gaming would not have thrived in the United States as it does today, were it not for single player games like Super Mario Bros. and its countless brethren.
My two cents.