Talk:Collectible card game

message: I think the artickle would be better with some foreign examples. The CCG isn't only english game. I mean not make a list just show some early examples. The Hungarian one was used at least in 4 countries (Hungary, Czeh, Slovakia, Romania) and it is still exist since 1995. I think it deserves 2 or 3 sentences. --Szente (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the article as it stands now, mentions wto foreign CCGs... one from Scandinavia and the other from Indonesia. There is definitely room for more notable CCGs. However, the content added to the article must be readable. The previous edit was not. Also, I couldn't read the Hungarian article, and Google translate certainly didn't help. It would more helpful if an English source (for the English version of wikipedia) was cited. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the slow response. Been super busy. You're right the Indonesian wiki page has no sources. A citation is needed. However, if you choose to add the Hungarian CCG, I recommend proper English next time. I don't know anything about the Hungarian CCG or it's Hungarian citation, so if what you edit is unreadable, I won't be able to properly edit it because I won't know how to edit it, and will have to remove it. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If really unreadable what I wrote let remove it, I can accept this. If my english is not enough good but you understand what I would like to write, than let improve it. What I wrote about citation isn't depend on Hungarian wikipedia. Some time could happan that not exist english source. In this case, I think understandable. --Szente (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Collectible card game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080207033208/http://www.decipher.com:80/starwars/rfd011228transcript.html to http://www.decipher.com/starwars/rfd011228transcript.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: i miss a criticism section on this genre. it (or them) is(are) merchendise, a product on sale. as such it would be jusified to have a overview of common criticism related to this genre. (encourage the collection of an endless and ever growing card pool, the target group of which is mostly and increasingly underage.)
176.63.176.112 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of CCGs as a whole? We can certainly add some if we have ample sources we can cite. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note a similar section at talk:Magic: The Gathering. --Izno (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: I was bold in making a significant reordering of the article in this diff, as to reflect how most game genres are presented, starting with an overview of the format, then going into the history. This was reverted claiming I removed a lot of information.  I was actually careful to retail as much as possible from the prior edits, with only one area being on computer CCGs that I know I reworked fundamentally while trying to retain all references that existed (if anything, dropping primary/first-party source links which are problematic anyway). In other words, I kept all the basic information, just reordered into a more common encyclopedic approach. Yes, I moved sections around (including info from the lede) and so information will be in different places, but the same text for most of these should be there. Please double check this, I was not removing as much info as claimed. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have seen no objections, and as I noted, I was been careful in keeping material, I am going to restore the version I had added; I would appreciate that if there seems to be content missing that it be asked about before reverting because as I said, I tried to keep all the existing content, just reordered in a clearer manner. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the major restructuring edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collectible card game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://faculty.bschool.washington.edu/skotha/website/cases%20pdf/Wizards%20of%20the%20coast%201.4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824022118/http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml to http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't believe Digital Card Games should be on this article, at least in any dominant sense. Hearthstone, isn't technically a card game, as there are no cards in existence - anywhere. There could be a link to a different article about Digital Card games. This article however is about actual cards. I recommend we calve off that piece into it's own article. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearthstone and their ilk still involve collecting digital versions of cards and crafting decks, all in the same vein as Magic. Just because you can't physically hold a card doesn't change the fact that the broad mechanics are otherwise the same. And then you have the difficulty of drawing the line between something like MTGO and the new Magic game that is coming around that would have the same issue but clearly are still collectable card games. They do fall under here. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the similarities, but I also understand their dissimilarities as well. Hearthstone is remarkable, but strictly speaking, isn't a card game, but a computer game. Notable, as a footnote, but not the focus of this article, and same goes for MTGO, as far as I'm concerned. I'd argue, these aren't card games - but computer games imitating card games - worthy of mention, with links to separate articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Another thing to consider, is that Wikipedia defines a card game as using playing cards. Digital card games aren't using playing cards. It's purely digital. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

text: However, the growth of digital collectable card games is attributable to Hearthstone, and thus it has a place in the history. Yes, it is not the first computer-based CCG, but it is the one that proved a successful model and why many others have followed. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this, but that history is still digital history and I've moved it above, in Digital CCGs. I'm thinking about moving Digital CCGs below the regular history, since they are not the main focus of this article. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually, I see the future of this article calving Digital card games to their own page, with a link to it at the beginning of this article, and a footnote in the history. There is enough Digital cards games not mentioned in the Digital section that a lot of expanding could be done, warranting it's own article (if not now). For now I've moved it below. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Card Games 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collectible card game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729023803/http://voices.yahoo.com/understanding-magic-gathering-part-one-history-316660.html to http://voices.yahoo.com/understanding-magic-gathering-part-one-history-316660.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please see Talk:Kantai_Collection#Collectible_card_game%3F_I_think_not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Kantai Collection appears to have a TCG released in Japan with millions of packs sold. Am I missing something? Leitmotiv (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the ping. Minor issue, we should really standardize our usage to avoid trading card game (TCG) and use collectible card game (CCG). Back on topic. Interesting. BoardGameGeek does not even list it, AFAIK, but it is not great with regards to Asian games some of which are effectively marketed and sold only on their own markets. Kancolle was represented by at least one expansion in Weiss Schwarz CCG, but I don't think that warrants slapping CCG categories and such on any anime/manga or such franchise that got incorporated into the WS game. I can't find any information about a stand alone Kancolle CGG, only about the WS expansion(s). The source in our article () gives the date 2014. I can't find much information either way but I think that's the year the Kancolle WS expansion was released. So, unless anyone can find sources to the contrary, I think that there's no stand-alone Kancolle TCG, only a Kancolle-themed expansion for the WS CCG, and as such Kancolle does not warrant a CCG category. PS. Consider, for example: The X-Files Collectible Card Game exists and is categorized as CCG, but we are not going to categorize X-Files, Star Trek or Star Wars as CCGs... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not our place to make one term legitimate and the other not. We are only referencing sources to make these articles. Since the card game makers use them interchangeably, so does Wikipedia. As for the game, the sources supplied appear to be enough to qualify it as a CCG. It appears it didn't last long, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a CCG at that time. It's merely a factor of it being a live or dead CCG. In this case, a dead one, which is still enough to qualify. Now, if the game is an expansion only for an existing system, that does change things. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's my point. It doesn't matter if it was a successful CCG or not. My point is that it never was a stand-alone CCG, just an expansion theme for another one. Would you concur this is not enough to warrant a CCG category at the Kancolle article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah your argument on the other talk page wasn't succinct so I couldn't really parse that out. But yes, if it's just an expansion for a broader game it doesn't count. There's at least one other system like that. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  KanColle is not a CCG 

message: Please excuse my informal and hasty sounding post - I'm worried the definition will be lost and the lines will be blurred forever. 
''
There is obvious deliberate overlap in the industry caused by disingenuous marketing practices. but TCGs and CCGs are not the same thing and have key differences in design.
TCGs can be drafted and usually have a mechanical safety net to support it.
TCGs are "bean" based in their resource systems.
TCGs are Gameplay/Trading Focussed where a card's value is based on soft-written synergies.
TCGs have a variable number of players.
CCGs generally cannot be drafted due to their design.
CCGs are Collection focussed where a car's value is based on hard-written, usually nominal synergies.
CCGs trend towards nomination and are asymmetric in value on a card-for-card basis by design.
CCGs are timing/nomination/position based in their resource systems.
CCGs have a fixed number of players.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.140.217 (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs to be sourcable; very few sources consider a difference between the two. --Masem (t) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree with Masem. Sources please. Keep in mind that many of the sources on this article already note that these terms are interchangeable and exist out of fear from legal action, not because of a difference in game mechanics. Even if you do find an adequate source, you will have to convince everyone why that source would supersede the existing sources that contradict it. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm going to third that this is a wholly made up distinction by the anon, and that games use both terms regardless of mechanical differences. oknazevad (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCGs and CCGs are not the same.