So initially this thread focused on the definition of what was 'optional' and the simple irrefutable fact that such a term is subjective and cannot be defined. What is optional to one is not optional to another. There is no argument to be had. It is irrelevant what one's personal opinion on the matter is, having one does not lessen the value of another’s. The only entity in this equation with the ability to do so with any weight and lasting ramification is Square Enix themselves and as many have pointed out, this is their game and we signed on the dotted line.

Now around the middle off the thread we were able to establish that Square's position on the matter was that end game raiding and those who enjoy that aspect were the primary focus of their development and any alternate features and thus players are to be considered optional and susceptible to being price tagged, placed on a shelf, and in the case of the latter lost without a tear.

The remainder of this debate seems to have shifted toward another equally undefinable designation and that is what it means to 'win'. Like optional, this term is relative to the goals set by the individual and not by an outside party. If a player pays their sub, joins a free company, and finds a group of lifetime friends they may consider themselves to have won regardless of having failed to achieve some arbitrary milestone set by the developers.

Which takes us back to the ugly truth at the heart of this debate. Square Enix is the only party able to force upon anyone 'their' definition of these terms. They can tell us the rules and thus how to win their game and as such can then categorize any element not directly related to the achievement of that goal as optional.

Now that still does not change the individual player's personal and valid position on the subject as this and many threads like it have proven. Each of us is allowed to define those two terms any way we see fit as they only have value when measured against our own perspective. This, unfortunately, does not change though that in this world Square writes the rules and our only recourse is to express our dissatisfaction with that decision and in the possible eventuality of failing to change their mind, no longer being a customer.

So that is where we stand. Two separate groups have established that they each have their own valid definitions of what it is to win because they are based on the goals they have set for themselves. Likewise, any aspects not directly related to the accomplishment of those goals will be logically considered optional to them even if they hold great worth to another. Both positions are worthwhile and should be taken into consideration by the development team as it is their position alone that will determine which of these will determine the course of the game’s development, the treatment of its customer base, and by cause and effect the loyalty of the same.


What we really need here is a clear cut, black and white statement from Square but as I am sure we all know that is never going to happen. It is far more likely we will continue to enjoy half-truths, double talk, or complete silence from the people that expect us to continue to shell out our hard earned money without question like good little cash cows… does sound a lot like politicians now that I think about it.