I understand the social element, but how do you get this when you play people who do things they wouldn't do with you in person?  Jumping in with a bunch of strangers you don't know, and playing, is social to some extent, but when they view you merely as smarter bots, then how is it?  It is like hanging out on Facebook all the time, or Twitter, reading posts and thinking all that is having friends.

And what I see the likes of Microsoft doing, is wrapping up the online experience with "better matchmaking" with strangers.  There isn't anything given to actually matchmaking with people who are fun to play with, just their skill is similar.  That to me isn't social, it is turning people into bots.

It sure comes with frustrations too, just like the ones you describe in the OP. Sometimes to the point that you throw the disc out and swear you'll never voluntarily allow yourself to be tormented again.

Yes, it works kinda like an illusion. In a MMO you pretend that other people around actually care about you as a person, or in an RTS or FPS that people actually care if you win or not. Illusions of co-operation, acknowledgment and pride. And sometimes you find out that you are taking things too seriously, that things aren't what they seemed to be.

It's a double-edged sword.

Single-player is much more predictable and safe.

Maybe a better way to phrase all this, and explain is that I am NOT opposed to, and I do like, multiplayer.  What I have issue with is how they are doing it now, and failure to seemingly screen quality of people, to make sure you have a good time.  People today will usually bring their friends in.  You do have clans, for example, that help you have a team of people you know.  What I see with Microsoft, is that they didn't even do clan support.  It is jump in and find random people, and hope the experience is good.  This has led to all the jokes around about it, and complaints.  I see with Microsoft, they aren't even doing anythig to address it, that I know of at all.  It is better matchmaking BASED ON SKILL.  And the idea is to totally engineer things to withstand the worst of human behavior, and design games so that you don't have to really interact with people, but you do as a competitor.  You don't even have to talk with them.

I have run tournaments in the past online.  I did them asymetrically, using Game Room and Pinball FX2.  What I failed to see is any semblance of having people find others of similar interest.  CADERS is built on these efforts, and I am now over 180 members.  Most people use Facebook to talk pretty much.  NONE of this community building comes out of people playing anything at all.  I just don't see it.  It is like I have to bring my personal network with me, and hope that it gets people together, and people can be available.  I found Microsoft doesn't even understand the concept of user communities either at all.  They just see things as disconnected pockets of small groups, and not communities.  

Beyond this, all I see is people being treated as AIs, and being disembodied voices, and that is supposed to be fun.  I guess if you want to do pwnage.  But, what if you just want to have a good time?  Where is that?  Where is the playing to be social without playing for a win?  Where is the facilitating finding new people who would be fun?  I don't see it.

Note I said ONLINE multiplayer.  And I was primarily talking about matchmaking systems where you get matched up with people you don't even know.  I did tip a hat to cases where you are long distance from people you know and it is difficult to get together.  As I said:

I wil add here, if you have friends remotely, it is nice to be able to play with them.  But beyond this, I don't get it.

I understand your point. Perhaps you should have reworded your OP, because judging from the defensive tone of the replies, many people thought you were questioning the whole concept of multiplayer, not just the anti-social or frustrating aspects of it.

About the anti-social problems with multiplayer. Well, spontaneously I am thinking that it's a very difficult problem to solve. It's like we're seeing an evolution regarding this topic by gaming companies:

First they invent online multiplayer, just the ability to connect to a game and play together with other people. But everyone is out there by themselves, the company doesn't interfere with that in any way.

Then came services who tried to make sure people didn't cheat. Services who could scan the network for hacking software and who could ban cheaters. Games and matchmaking services with continious support with updates and patches.

The next step is what we're seeing now with MS and "intelligent matchmaking" for the Xbone. It's supposedly going to sort based on player skills and basic decent social behaviour. MS is promising that abusive people will be sorted out from your games if you are a sophisticated player. At the same time they're trying to make it equal for everybody. A problem with clans and real tight communities is that it all of a sudden becomes crucial what social skills an individual has, what networks he has access to. You always have a superior advantage if you can co-operate with people with the same interests, your friends or a clan. The elitism aspect. It seems MS is primarily improving the service for random, unorganized players.

The next step would perhaps be to try and integrate the two somehow. That's where your mind is now, that's how you are approaching this thing. A matchmaking service that connects random people as well as communities, that takes care of both groups, takes care of all types of people. A service that encourages random players to find communities and enables them to take part of the advantages that come with communities. A service which feels fair and just for all players. I don't know if it's possible. What do you think?

Sorry, I am not sold on online multiplayer as a big deal.

I wil add here, if you have friends remotely, it is nice to be able to play with them.  But beyond this, I don't get it.

Online multiplayer is made out to be some sort of critical feature.  But try firing up some sort of minor title or older title and watch there be little people to play online with.  If it is a big title, you get a bunch.  Otherwise, you could likely not run into anyone.

Then, you do find someone.  If you aren't running into immature jerks who throw insults around, you get experience like I did with the original Borderlands.  I found a rare person online to play, and did a game.  I was then facing abusive language because he didn't like me.  Then, he gives me a hacked shield that made me indestructable pretty much, ruining Borderlands for me.

So, pardon me here.  I just don't get the big deal with online multiplayer at all.  What is the appeal of finding people I don't know online and playing them, and hoping the experience is decent.  Apparently Microsoft, and Sony, now feels that I would need to pay for all this.  And with Microsoft, I have the distinct feeling that I am to drag my friends into their world, as they do squat to really enable people to meet others through their service.  Seriously here, why am I going to bother dragging anyone into their world?  Sorry, not in the mood.  I would rather play face to face with people and have some sort of social connecting, not this faux Facebook style nonsense of lack of human interaction.  Like, I do boardgames with people at social get togethers, and that is rewarding, FAR more than what the online pay to play world does.

Hey, maybe I am missing something awesome here.  If so, feel free to post a counterpoint below.