I'm asking you for an example where the single player turned crappy when they introduced Multiplayer. You clearly can't read because that's what I've been asking for probably the past three replies. And none of your arguments point out why the two can't co-exist. If you don't want to play MP, great, I really don't care. But I don't see why people have to be dicks about it. While playing uncharted 2, did the knowledge that multiplayer exists make the game any less amazing to you? 

And yes, you've provided why people might express happiness. Is there a possibility that those concerns could be valid? yes. But they aren't because there is nothing suggesting that those concerns are legitamate. I could be concerned that the Russian government is spying on me right now, but I have no reason to believe that's true. 

I didn't give you an example because your question was irrelevant in the scope of the discussion. I never said a game became crappy because of MP, you just asked straight out of the blue for examples of games turned out crappy due to MP. I didn't answer your question because I thought you missed my point and that it needed clarification because, like I said, your question was (and still is) irrelevant in the scope of the discussion. It's not all black and white, you know, not all effects are either godlike or horrible. And this is the reason I'm still not going to answer your question. In case you were still wondering, I doubt such an example exists because you are going to extremes here.

As for your Uncharted 2 question, it did not. However, I never got the feeling that including a MP mode was a necessary or even a good idea. I tried it out a couple of times, got sick of the lag, and never felt ND had any original or interesting ideas for MP aside from co-op, and even that wasn't an original idea.

And as for the legitimacy of my claims, I must point out that creating MP always requires resources that could be used elsewhere. MP doesn't just make itself, it needs to be made with resources.

I know MP doesn't just make itself, but that doesn't mean a lower quality game overall like you're assuming. And yes, it is an assumption. And the fact that you don't like it, doesn't mean that others can't. It's still added value to that game because others enjoyed it. The fact that the multiplayer existed made the game no worse for you, and it made it more enjoyable for me and other people wouls say the same thing I did. That's my point. If you don't want to play MP, go ahead. I think you're missing out on a huge part of the game. But until I actually see a game having multiplayer make the singleplayer of the game worse than its predecessor, I will say your claim is ludicrous because the claims of people with this opinion has no evidence backing it. If you don't understand that, then I give up and you "win." I've never been in such a long argument with someone about why it's bad to be a dick.

Oh, I didn't say it's always lower quality game. I think I did at first, then revised my statement to the resource form. Either way, there's a chance it'll be a worse game. Of course you can't prove it because you would have to assemble to identical teams, give them both equal resources, and have the first one create the game without MP and the other one with MP and then compare the results. Obviously that's impossible so the only thing remaining is to say that those resources were taken away from somewhere else, be it SP development or something else. I'll give you that, though, that no one is probably going to let SP become crappy just because they add MP, that would be bad for the value of the game.

I agree, MP can add value to some people. But you have to also consider the resources it takes and you'd have to evaluate that against the value added by MP. It's not as simple as 'adding value' because it takes resources from somewhere to create that value. Would those resources have been spent better elsewhere? Maybe, maybe not. Again, it's hard to know for sure but it's not always worth the effort, that's for sure.

The funny this is, I can enjoy MP if it's done properly and not just tacked on to have people keep the game longer and not resell it so quickly. I haven't been playing a whole lot of MP lately but that's just because I haven't found many interesting MP experiences lately. I'm just not interested in playing DM, TDM, and CTF with small variations over and over again in games where DM/TDM/CTF obviously isn't the way to make MP interesting. The horde mode and its variants don't fit in all games either, as entertaining as the mode can be. But trust me, I can enjoy a good MP mode when I run into one.

As for this whole argument... Yup, pretty ridiculous. I get the feeling that you think MP is always added value, doesn't have any negative effect on anything else, and I disagree with that, even though I'm not saying the damage to whatever else is huge. Maybe I'm just not getting your point. As for the being a dick part, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't see there any 'being a dick' where you say there is, and it seems neither of our arguments works for the other one.

EDIT: And one addition: I don't think it's ever good to be a dick. The argument isn't about whether it's good to be a dick or not, it's about whether the thing you said is about being a dick.

No, MP is not always added value. A perfect example of that is spec ops the line. I was annoyed by the argument of you implying every single MP is tacked on. And yes, you did make it sound like that. My other arguments were stating that it's clear that a game's quality in SP can still go up after online is added, and it usually does. And they idea that it's always good when a dev chooses to not include multiplayer. I think that any game can have a fantastic MP if done correctly. If they aren't going to, I agree that it might as well be left out. But if done correctly, any game can. I think infamous could have a great comptetitive. The order looked like it was going to be an awesome coop mode at first (and don't say you couldn't totally see that from the launch trailer). And many onlines that you probably have written off were awesome. The wall scaling in uncharted on line was super fun and new. I think that MP needs to somehow reflect one of the major aspects of the single player. If done so correctly it's great. That's my argument. I find it annoying that many peole assume online is tacked on. 

I never implied that all MP is tacked on. I took special care to never say so, even though I didn't take special care to ensure you don't get that impression. I never got the impression from your post that SP quality can go up thanks to added MP, although I imagine it can be true in some rare cases. And I agree, any game can have a fantastic MP mode if done correctly. I also think that for many games, correctly doing that requires not just some effort but a huge effort becomes some games are better suited for SP and coming up with a proper MP mode might be difficult.

As for the games you specifically mentioned, I can't really say much. inFamous could have some potential but it would also require a bit of creativity to be worth the effort IMO. I couldn't see anything from The Order launch trailer because I didn't watch it. :P As for Uncharted, core MP gameplay seemed to be pretty much the usual DM/TDM/CTF with climbing, and I think that in the big picture, it didn't add very much to the basic plan. For me, Uncharted was much more than a shooter yet the MP modes focused on the shooting part and climbing thing was just a small addition to that, and that's why I didn't like it so much. I definitely agree, though, that MP should somehow reflect SP.

If you weren't trying to imply, it certainly sounded like it. And I didn't mean it adds to the single player  (even though some do a little bit). What I meant was, a multiplayer element needs to be built around the  core element that makes the game unique. If not, then it is just another generic turd online. But I think a surprising number of devs do a good job at this. 
And I agree that inFamous having a good online would require creativity. But isn't creativity what inspires innovation? More games need to do new things.

Ps. Can't believe an argument online might actually end with the two parties coming to an agreement.