1. Casino A:
Players in this casino compete against the platform (house) in games such as BlackJack, Rollet, Slots, etc... .
In this type of casino, players must rely on luck and other factors to make a profit.
2. Casino B:
Players in this casino compete against each others in games such as Ludo, Poker, Rummy, etc... .
In this type of casino, players rely on their luck and skills to make a profit.
There is only one winner in each game (Ludo: first place, Poker/Rummy: last man standing).
I would go with type A casinos and I know it's not a common opinion but the reasoning behind choosing a luck-based casino where we compete against house edge is the lower edge. I have seen that in most platforms and games where a dealer is involved or players play among themselves, the platform charges hefty fees for that and that's much higher than the usual house edge.
If the house edge & platform commission are the same, then no doubt I would play multiplayer games because it's much more fun and engaging while also a good chance to show off the skills and make some money.
The reason it has a high house edge is to cover operating cost since they don't have any source of income compared when the house is directly playing to players. There's a pros and cons in both option and it solely depends on the skills of the player. If the player has good skill per se poker then it will be good for him to play against other players instead against House even the house edge is much bigger, In the end he will have huge profit for his skill advantage which he can't use if he play against the house.
But only few casino will offer a pure Player to Player game due to a lot competition out there. Imagine a huge operating cost for a small profit on house edge which you can't guarantee if many people will play on your table.