This was expressed during the pre-release "EULA discussions" (or some time thereabouts) by several people. Many felt that the "modular" approach would have led to more problems than it solved. I, for one, believe that this would have been the most sensible approach; given the overall complexity of P5 with all the additional functions and features. Add to that the fact that many features would probably be used by a small subset of users, a completely customizable approach would have allowed, say, 6 month development time per room allowing for enough extensive testing to ensure the greatest compatibility. It would have also given CLs' the ability to extend their financial stream over a longer period of time, possibly allowing them the financial stability they seem to require.