FFVII case...weirdness?

Several of Square's games have reprints with the SquareEnix logo on it. Not only Final Fantasy VII, but Im pretty sure I've seen the same for VIII and IX. I know Xenosaga has a Squeenix version out there as well. Rule of thumb for me is not to buy Greatest Hits games if youre a collector, that way you know its not some lousy reprint game. But of course, there is the Rhapsody/Persona 2 incident recently, where two of the rarest PS1 rpgs were rereleased and now run rampant on ebay. I mean, wtf Atlus, those two sold for 70 bucks a piece in auction and now you can get both for 40 together!? Im glad I didn't have to break the bank to finally buy two really great games, but so much for collection rarity, their common as hell now.

Boo on reprints!

Sorry, GEARS, not saga.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

EDIT: Sorry, I was talking about XENOGEARS. I was reading the IGN article on XS:3 as I wrote the post so I guess I was kind of confused.

And, stocks are boring, while games are fun. But that is totally besides the point, my argument stems from the fact that I personally take enjoyment out of bargain hunting, trying to find rare games for my collection, because its very much like collecting anything. I don't collect games for the money, or else I would have sold nearly all of my collection long ago. I will never sell them.

And whats this complaining about not being able to play these games unless they were reprinted? Maybe I have a lucky Gamestop and EB around me but even before these games came out with the SquareEnix reprints, FF7 and 8 and 9 and even 'Gears could be found used complete for 15 or 20 bucks anyway! And unless you were planing on NOT opening the game, its the exact same thing as a new one because if you just ask the sales person, you can choose the cleanest, not scratched-"est" CDs. They're just sitting on the shelves collecting dust. So, I don't think thats a good enough argument for reprints.

Now, I bought the games because I was one of the firt people to notice that this ONE guy on ebay was selling both games New, Sealed for 50 dollars each. I bought them thinking that I had made a great deal, and then it so happens that a few other ebay sellers popped up with the same thing. Arousing my suspicion, and having already recieved my copies, I contacted Atlus to make sure my games weren't a very well made bootleg. The Atlus rep told me that an undisclosed amount of the two games were reprinted. Apparently that was a big amount, because even now, almost a year later there are still a bunch of them online, and even in stores.

Double Post:
By the way , I forget to bring it all back around. Its not being selfish really. See, if they decided to reprint a game like Greatest Hits style, where there is an obvious difference between an original version and the reprint, then I couldn't careless and am actually all for reprints that way. But the problem with the Atlus reprint is that it is completely indistinguishable from the original. It is even dated on the case with the original date, and no new copyright date for 2005, etc. So, it ruins its collectors worth. While a greatest hits version of a game has a different price on the collector's market, it makes it worth finding or buying a game when it first comes out to have an original. What Atlus did, while sure it is a great thing, is like having a #1 Superman comic reprinted with no difference in the new print and the orignal. Then, flooding the market with them, the price will drop significantly. Of course, Im not in it for the money but that is the best way to judge something's rarity.

Nobody here probably agrees with me but whatever. If you collect ANYTHING you must understand where I am coming from. So, I guess not "Boo on reprints" really, but "Boo on "indistinguishable from an orignal" reprints"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well like I said earlier Jason, I wouldn't mind if SquareEnix reprinted VP or Konami reprinted Suikoden. But, I think there should be some indicator, like the SquareEnix logo, or even something as little as an updated copyright date, like second, or third edtions of books that might say (C) SquareEnix 1999, 2006. That way, it is distinguishable from a printed years ago, and for those of us who are really anal about somethings in their collection, they can note that difference. Why do you think first editions of a book are more collectable? Its the same thing.

How ya doing, buddy?