consumers aren't too worried about it.
More like f@#4ing ecstatic about it.
It's funny the past 2 years there have been a lot of reviewers and people complaining about how all the videogames seemed to have multiplayer when in reality there where less games with multiplayer being made.
It's either because companies are either 1) Adding a tacked on, cheap and worthless multiplayer or 2) not adding multiplayer at all.
its not that less games have multiplayer, its that there are way more indie titles with no multiplayer that lower the multiplayer percentage.
Personally i dont care about online multiplayer. if i want to play online i play a MMO, all else i want to play singleplayer only and dont evne touch that multiplayer button most of the time.
Now the Hotseat/splitsceeen mode is going extinct and im ready to kill for that. i used to play with friends in hotseat Heroes and civilization all the time. most games even civ 5 dont support that anymore :( even SC2 dont have lan now.
The chart just shows percentages for the market per year that has multiplayer or no mulitplayer. If you're counting all the upstart indie games that are single player only, then yes, a higher number of games are now supporting single player.
In the AAA industry? Nope. It's just as bad as always.
If the industry thinks implementing local multiplayer is bad for business then why don't they instead of having no local multi-player at all, they could lock the split-screen feature and unlock it to users that have their own individual licence to the game, this then means you could have 4 people sign in to a single device that own a licence of that game. Also then the developers can make statistical analysis to see how many people are playing on the same device to find out how popular split-screen really is, local multi-play definitely adds so much replay value but how can they know people are using it currently, i guess with xbox live its possible. I like the idea of having your progression saved to an account with achievements along with this.