Square Enix is basically telling shareholders it might make more smaller, more traditional Final Fantasy remakes. In a recent question-and-answer section of a shareholders meeting, the company fielded an inquiry about the scale of its remakes and remasters, specifically whether fans should expect more projects like Final Fantasy Resonance rather than the huge open-world, action-driven approach seen in the Final Fantasy 7 Remake trilogy.

The answer, while not a hard commitment, was explicit about the method. Square Enix said: “As part of our market-in approach, we engage in trial and error to establish what is best for contemporary customers based on current market needs and trends,” adding that “it is extremely important to us that we strike the right balance between our approach and the expectations of players who loved the original works.” Then it doubled down on the selection principle: “While specific titles may call for specific mechanics, we will continue our development efforts by assessing what truly resonates within the current market environment for both original titles and new remakes.”

So what is this “Resonance-shaped” path, and why did it light up the market conversation? GamesRadar+ frames Final Fantasy Resonance as a new spin-off with a 2.5D pixel art aesthetic that feels like a retro-minded remake, described as a sort-of remake of a mobile game. The core selling point for fans in this framing is that it updates presentation while retaining traditional combat systems, which is a very different design philosophy from the fully re-engineered action style of Final Fantasy 7 Remake. That distinction matters because it changes what “traditional” means operationally for Square Enix: it is not just re-skinning a classic, it is choosing a development direction where risk, cost, and player sentiment can move together.

And Square Enix does not deny that it is watching what sells. The company’s language in the Q&A is unmistakably market-feedback driven. It describes an approach where trial and error is part of establishing what works for “contemporary customers,” and where the firm explicitly weighs the expectations of players who loved the originals. In other words: the board and management are not treating remake strategy as a culture project with a single artistic compass. They are treating it as a repeatable market exercise, with the caveat that different titles might call for different mechanics.

This is not the first time Square Enix tested whether “old-school fidelity” can scale. GamesRadar+ points to Final Fantasy Tactics - The Ivalice Chronicles from last year as a market experiment that maintained the isometric visuals of the original. It also points to Square Enix’s work on Dragon Quest, where early entries have been remade in the 2.5D style. The article notes those remakes “seem to have successfully allowed the property to find multiple generations of new fans,” which is exactly the kind of second-order outcome studios and publishers care about. Not just immediate sales, but whether a franchise can widen its audience without alienating core players.

There is also a second-order publishing reality hiding in the shareholder phrasing: “market needs and trends” is a polite way of saying the company is responding to the whole ecosystem, including how audiences consume games today and how production timelines and expectations have changed. When you build a huge open-world action title, you are committing to a very specific player experience. When you build a smaller remake that leans into traditional combat systems and 2.5D aesthetics, you are making a different bet on what fans want next, and how much transformation is required to justify a remake in the first place.

For executives evaluating similar strategies across portfolios, the strategic stake is not whether Final Fantasy remakes look a certain way. It is whether the company has a credible decision framework for future bets. Square Enix’s answer suggests the framework is: test, learn, balance expectations of original fans with what contemporary customers will actually play, and then keep assessing “what truly resonates” as the market evolves. That approach can reduce the risk of lock-in to one format, but it also creates a continual obligation to measure outcomes and iterate.

Finally, there is a live-services angle that matters for long-term planning, even for fans. GamesRadar+ adds that Square Enix “doesn’t promise to keep games playable forever” but will “continue to create pathways” for fans to enjoy them “even after service has ended.” That sentence may sound like a footnote, but it has real operational implications: when companies cannot guarantee perpetual availability, they often shift the meaning of retention toward accessibility channels, legacy value, and post-service engagement. If Square Enix follows through on that, future remake and remaster strategies will likely be judged not only by launch success, but by how well the company can keep value flowing after the service clock runs out.

Bottom line: Square Enix is not committing to one remake size or one combat philosophy. In a shareholder exchange, it signaled that more traditional, potentially smaller projects could happen, guided by trial-and-error experimentation and a continuing assessment of what “truly resonates.” If you are building or investing in adjacent IP, that is the message: the next remake wave is likely to be shaped less by nostalgia alone, and more by measured resonance with both legacy fans and today’s market.