If you want to play the same exact title, yes. But previous versions would kick you out from playing a shared game if the owner was playing any other title in their library, and they've recently removed that behaviout.
I'm a huge fan of CoQ. But sometimes the chaotic layout of the procedural maps really clash with the neatness of the hand made story locations and towns. It's minor gripe though, meshing curated and procedural content seems like a hard task.
I spend like, a hideous amount of time thinking about this exact thing. I have been using computers to aid me in DMing since I was doing Basic/Expert on my TI-99 4/A.
Procedural content has a number of drawbacks. Just to pick one example, take the various cellular automata algorithms to generate cave systems (or really any algo). What would be great for this is if the 2D very simulationist matrix of on/off cells could be remapped to a series of nodes ("large enough caves") and edges ("passageways"). You could then try to do lock-and-key puzzles based on this.
Aside from the "sameness" issue, most of these lack two big features that people can extrapolate from playing a dungeon: history and purpose. The first, purpose, is essentially about the creature, humanoid, whatever that did the excavation -- what were they doing? Was it a xorn just kind of gobbling around? Water? Perhaps a humble owlbear looking to make a nest. Or were some dwarves tidily making a mine? Perhaps a religion was having secret meetings there. The smarter the creature, the more you have to think about purpose and intention. As an example, let's take our secret cult (literally "occult"): unless they worshiped a slime deity, they probably wouldn't place the privy next to the altar. Nor would dwarves place the privy next to the kitchen. Logical places would exist for things.
History comes from having multiple excavations over time. A river overflows its banks for a century and hollows out a spot under a cliff. Then the owlbear. Ah, but a dragon eats the owlbear. Years later a dwarf hikes by and sees a gleam of promising minerals at the back of that abandoned owlbear cave and brings friends to excavate. Later, the mine is played out and a lich moves in, adding various traps ...
Most procedural dungeons pay little to no attention to these steps, which are, after all, quite hard.
After that, you have to avoid your "monster hotel" scenario to make some kind of quasi-believable ecology to your system. In reality, most full-time cave dwellers are small and feeble and delicate, so you may want to "shallow up" your dungeons or populate the more remote areas with creatures whose nutritional needs are scant (fungi, slimes, undead, constructs). Perhaps there are holes through which a vibrant river drains and at least there are fish for Gollum to catch. Or deep magicks emanate a kind of mana to be devoured by a fungus not unlike the kind that has adapted to live on spent fuel rods here on Earth.
Then, you have to consider player satisfaction. You may want to "Jaquay" that dungeon area. Some players like exploration, some like puzzles, and some must kill every last critter no matter how small. Others want to accomplish the goal (whatever that is) and leave.
Putting all of this together gets harder and harder with procedural content.
I agree. I also have spent a lot of time thinking about how to make PCG better. My conclusion is that the key is intent/design. The PCG algorithm needs to first generate the high-level gameplay design/intent and then the context. Instead of just arbitrarily placing things, it needs to place things constrained by what makes sense from a gameplay/fun point of view.
