I maintain what i implicitly said, a customer does not know what he wants, it's up to the producer to find what works, same goes for players and devs.
About that point of "you want something nerfed that you do not play", i do not use the Doom because A: not my playstyle and B: still entrenched in 0.9.1. Considering how broken the thing is and how broken enemies are unless the former is used, i would be driven into that corner, as right now playing midlines+carriers and ignoring lowtech entirely.
I'm not special, just part of the niche that enjoy that kind of stuff, i like my corner and management tabs, yet recognise that this niche has no right subjugating others who want no part in it yet have to (be it consciously or not).
We are our most biased viewpoint, observing communities as a whole and acknowledging (not necessarily rejecting) our biases when doing so is primordial to understanding trends and mechanisms.
Maybe there's a truth about good being subjective (that i view as the go-to "defence" when something someone likes is being "attacked", both a wound and insult to all artforms), but an absolute one is the playerbase. If your game offer options, viable ones are those that count, others might as well not exist.
A busted option does this to an even greater degree.
In both solo and multi, the advantaged playstyle defends it's position, while the others complain, if devs give-in, the nerfed side (if within reason) cries a bit before calming down, but when the status-quo remain, everyone else quietly leaves, entering a negative feedback loop of dwindling population but higher ratio of pro status-quo.
As for that point you made on the P2W game, it is flawed logic, and for two reasons:
-You wouldn't need to find the fun through cheats in the first place if the game was good (which is solely incompatible with P2W games, took years to learn that), it takes time to know when something is bad, as even poking a dead rat with a stick can be entertaining for some time.
-You only reference your point of view, which you did the whole time, everything is subjective but only if it's from someone else. What about the large majority of the playerbase that did not get to find such cheats to essentially gain the benefits of those with a bottomless credit card? Did they find the fun?
The truth is whatever gets to be reliably viable within it's niche, games inside those search for the truth in question.
The best representation of this idea is the essay on DayZ from Sovietwomble.
Multiplayer is inherently different and more likely to provide entertainment (IE: not fun, entertainment. Can be the kind players loathe but still play) and as such while more active, also more forgiving of it's flaws.
A solo experience is it's own description.
It HAS to stand on it's two feet and provide to the player entirely by itself, the core gameplay loop has to suck the player in and keep-up for hours if not days, helped by the flavours around it.
ALL flavours have to live around said loop, those fully in the shadow are useless load bound to disappoint, those basked in light completely alter the intended journey, and hold an addiction that take long to notice until you realise you spent the whole voyage in a semi-conscious daze.