Talk:Collectible card game

The Base Ball Card Game

Some recent edits suggest the Base Ball Card Game as the first collectible card game. This is wrong for several reasons. First, it was never published and was only in prototype form. If you couple that with the STRICT definition of "collectible," then there is nothing about the game that matches the definition. No one had a chance to collect it and it was never even released to the public. No one had a chance to play it. At best it is a prototype and can be noted as such, but the first actual collectible card game would be Magic given the sources available on this article. I will change the article to reflect this information. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the problems I have with your history of insisting "Magic" is the first colelctable card game. Why is "Magic" the first actual collectable card game? What does actual mean in this context? Because you say so? I don't think the lead (or article in general) should mention the "first". All the sources that are reliable (not made by the publisher of Magic) have qualifiers, i.e. "first patenented" or "first modern". Finally, why is it important that Magic be the first? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to reevaluate your interpretation of my edits. First, this is not "[my]" history. Sources have been added. It used to be one, now it's up to three that states Magic as the first. I could care less which game is first, but the sources have to be in place. Secondly, I think having the first card game mentioned is perfect information for a lead. People want to know that kind of thing for research. Finally, it is not important that Magic be the first. Refer to my first sentence about this being "[my]" history. Please change your approach. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In the recent history of this article (past year) you are the only editor adding Magic as the first collectable card game, atleast two other editors have expressed concern with that statment, Me because the source added is the publisher of Magic and obviously biased, we then found other sources, but they use qualifiers to "first", Sardyssy also had concerns pertaning to the fact that the Base Ball Card Game came out long before Magic, you have worked with both of us and I apprciate that but I still have issues with calling Magic the first acknowledged collectable card game, acknowledged and if you say Wizards of the coast I believe everyone can understand that is a conflict of interest.

If there is to be some real change in the lead about the beginnings of CCGS, then ample sources must be provided. If you want to find some that really argue for a strong contender to Magic being the first, by all means go for it. But the last source I added was a doozy and three sources now make for a formidable wall to overcome, though not impossible. WotC claiming itself as the originator is not so much of a problem on a page about CCGs. Yes, it's biased, but it's still a proper source and one that does not seem to be contended by other CCG creators. The Base Ball Card Game is a joke. It is not a CCG. Nothing about it was collectible. No one collected it as such. It was never produced. I doubt anyone even played the game except the creator. It does not strictly fit the definition of a CCG even though it shares 2 out of 3 traits. Close, but so very far away. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

On "Acknowledged." I would revert and remind you of the three-revert rule but it probably reads better as is. I would like to clarify though, since you aren't getting it. It is "acknowledged" by the sources provided which are cited in the sentence in question. The sources "state" it's the first CCG. These sources are the ones doing the acknowledging (such as J. Patrick Williams). It goes without saying. So to spell out for the reader who acknowledges it is redundant and not necessary. All they need to do is click on the source link and they can find out for themselves. Quibbling over such a mundane detail is not helping this page. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional thoughts on the Base Ball Card Game: It is unknown whether this unfinished/undistributed game was intended to be made, marketed, and used like a true CCG. We will never know either. Did the creator intend for one person to buy the game, and the owner kept the copy of it and shared it with his friends on game night? Or did he intend for it to be tradeable/collectible? For all we know, it was meant to be a stand alone product that was shared like any regular board game, which probably is closer to the truth since that was the way of things back then. If so, the Base Ball Card Game is a far cry from a CCG. In short, it is just a Base Ball Card Game. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

More thoughts (and this is where we should be discussing the latest edits). The overwhelming amount of references state the Magic is the first CCG and nary a one states anything contrary to that (and I've done Google searches). I'd say the verdict is in on this one. If you can supply sources that state otherwise, I will gladly review those, but compared to the sheer abundance of articles (including peer-reviewed ones) that state Magic being the first, I wouldn't bother wasting your time. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet more thoughts. The patent page on Magic says "cards may be obtained from retail outlets, trading with other players or collectors, and winning cards at games and tournaments." This obviously never happened with the Base Ball Card Game. It was never for sale. Any way you cut it, the Base Ball Card Game is not a CCG. It could easily have been a LCG, or some other board game that was never completed. We just don't know! But it is mentioned in the lead, and honorably I might add. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Base Ball Card Game this articles sums up what I've been saying all along. And no, it cannot be used as a reference for the game being the first, because it is citing Wikipedia. Everything that follows that assertion though seems to blow up the theory that the Base Ball Card Game was the first. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Foreign examples

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)

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)

For the record. The Hungarian CCG was really early released (1995), it is still exist, and released in two countries (used in 4). I think it enought noticable. Now you request an english language source for hungarian released card game? Very reasonable request. I think there are many exaple for only foreign source in english wikipedia. Anyway where is the english source for indonesien CCG? --Szente (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If no more answer than if Indonesian CCG is notable what just was published in 2006 (is it still exist?) than the HKK is notable too. Don't remove without reason. I think we have enough space to keep these two sentences. --Szente (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for your help. --Szente (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Collectible card game#Arcade

@Leitmotiv: Yeah, I hear you about this one. I'm cheesed off about this section being here because it's the work of an indeffed user I've been cleaning up after. I tried doing a quick search about CCG arcade machines on Google but I haven't found anything useful yet-- my ability to look at a lot of sources is hampered due to time constraints and shitty work siteblockers. If you could help me out on this and help fix this section by finding better material it would be a great help.

Until then, though, I just think the section should be left out entirely the way it is now, because it focuses entirely on Sega when they can't be the only ones who've made games like this, it's got a single crap source, and has nothing content-wise that's salvageable without further sources, which I can't yet find for anything it's trying to say. It's just Sega sales fluff no matter which way we slice it, unless we can find RSes to back it up with. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To chime in for a bit, it does mention that other companies have made those games. Maybe remove words like "pioneered" and write the "first known game". Just nuking the promotional language would be fine I think.--178.190.253.163 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think these games are noteworthy and they shouldn't be deleted outright, even if these are sock puppet edits. Maybe they don't deserve their own section? I don't know, but they are a very novel entity and even if it means using a so-so reference to mention their existence. Deleting them outright is against the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia. The reason I reverted your edits is because it felt a little lazy to me. Trim it down, find better sources, merge with existing content... but completing deleting it is not acceptable. If I get time, I will help, but I have four "real life" jobs at the moment. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My rationale for removing it wasn't that mention of CCG arcade machines shouldn't be discussed in general; as a matter of fact I certainly think they should, but as it's being done right now in the article, it should be removed at least until it can be done better. I'm all for inclusionism, sure, but I'd rather not include completely broken and mis-sourced information that would mislead the reader.

Either way, for now, I'll do my best to fix it using the one source we've got on it. Turns out a lot of what's being attributed to it isn't even being said in the source, like the Sega football game being the first-ever CCG arcade game and such. Color me unsurprised.

I'm leery on gamesroomblog as a source as it is, mainly because they have no information on their /about page that indicates they're professionally managed or have much editorial control (but I note the use of "we"; at least it's more than one writer). They don't even credit authors on their article pages from what I can see... I'll leave it in, but I'll probably bring it up for RSN to look at if better sources turn up. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Collectible card game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

criticism

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).

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)

Note a similar section at talk:Magic: The Gathering. --Izno (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

On the major restructuring edit

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)

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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Digital Card Games

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)

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)

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)

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)

One more concern, the paragraph on Digital card games does not follow the flow layout for the rest of the history section. Right now it reads roughly from oldest to newest developments and then, at the end, there's digital card games (mostly a paragraph about Hearthstone). Additionally, Hearthstone is not the first digital ccg, and so it doesn't follow the layout previously set in the history section. MTGO was established well before then, so it seems like too much favoritism is applied to Hearthstone. I think a couple fixes are in line here - 1. Revamp the paragraph. If history is the focus, then the first digital card games should be mentioned as they were created. Hearthstone would appear later in the paragraph. 2. It should have its own section outside of history because it isn't strictly a card game as defined by wikipedia. Noteworthy as an adjunct, but doesn't meet the definition. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

True collectible card games

The verbage "true" is the latest topic. What is a true ccg? I can understand the stigma of using that word. I suppose we could say dccgs, or ccg-like games "do not qualify" or are "imitations" (I don't like those either, it's so much easier and shorter to say "true"), but the important thing to remember here is that Wikipedia's very own articles have defined cards as being a physical object, specifically "prepared heavy paper" or variations thereof. So right there you have what constitutes a card game and what doesn't. A digital product is, and never will be, a card game, only an emulation or imitation. So in that sense, a DCCG is not a "true" CCG. It's not a card game, it's quite obviously a computer game. True has the definition in computer language of being "yes". "True" has the sense of purity here in which it is important to distinguish between non-card games that emulate CCGs. The List of CCGs page has other CCG-like games that don't quite fit but are noteworthy.

The Miller reference used on this page is a superior source for info on CCGs and it could easily replace most or all other sources concerning origins, definitions, and early history. It is more in depth than any single source on this entire page which is why it is cited so much.

Page 14 says "What's a collectible card game? A collectible card game is a card game in which each player uses his own deck using cards..." (so that is what is true) and:

"The CCG Test

• Are the game cards sold in booster packs, starter decks, or both?
• As sold by the manufacturer, is it impossible to be sure of getting every card by making make (sic) only a small number of purchases of the base product?
• Does every player play with his own deck, using cards of his choice?
• Does the manufacturer market it as a 'collectible card game'?"

Other nuggets are found in the following pages such as: "CCGs simply require deck-tuning", "freedom to personalize, pick a strategy" and most importantly:

"We don't expect to ever include 'online CCGs,' which, while an interesting idea, lack the mass-produced, physical component that really is quite necessary in considering most collectibles. We'll put Stephen King's books in our personal card catalogs, but not his online downloads."

and while we're at it, since this has come up in other related edits of CCG game pages (adding for future use); dead games vs. live games:

"These are phrases used to refer to whether CCG systems are being supported at present by their manufacturers (and, to a lesser extent, by their fans). A 'dead game' is very hard to get into, because no one's out there organizing tournament support or answering questions about rules. And because new releases are so important to the evolving 'metagame,' when they stop coming out, players stop playing."

So discuss away... what is the alternative to not using "true" that gets the point across that DCCGs are not strictly speaking CCGs. Is it 'strictly speaking'? Leitmotiv (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, we cannot engage in original research. You seem to be trying to create a definition of what is a true CCG, when I don't think such exists, and we cannot make up a definition for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hardly. Not sure where you get that idea. I'm trying to keep articles consistent on Wikipedia. Declaring something as true is part of the english language. Something is either true or false regarding topics such as this. What I've done here is use Wikipedia's own articles as a baseline and for establishing consistency, as well as providing the Miller source. Using a single word, something as simple as true, doesn't constitute original research. I'm using it within the confines of what I've already provided. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You cannot use WP as a source for such a definition of what is or isn't a "true" CCG. And from the quote from Miller, that's definitely not saying that digital CCGs aren't CCGs, but that because there's a lack of a tangible asset, that they don't plan to cover those as part of their price list (the goal of that work); it doesn't make them not CCGs. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You certainly can for consistency or the whole website is a joke, and that's my argument, and plenty admins have used in the past with great success. I'm not directly citing wikipedia either, clearly sir, anyone using wikipedia or editing wikipedia is using outside sources to backup the info they put on wikipedia. If articles closely linked such as card games and collectible card games are to have any coherency or any tangible meaning in the words they use to describe them, then consistency is a must. Are you arguing the Wikipedia should describe computer games as card games where they use physically prepared cards from cardboard? If so, what does that say about the accuracy, nay the image of Wikipedia and its editors? Let's not be that silly. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree entirely that digital card games do not pass the CCG test, they are sold in booster packs and starter decks, it is impossible to get every card making only small number of purchases, each player plays with a deck they build, and the producers often do market them as "card games", although they may stick to using words like "strategic" rather than collectible, I think mainly to avoid stigmas surrounding that pay-to-win aspect of these types of games. A single primary source is not enough to say that DCCGs are "not true" or "not strictly speaking" CCGs, if there are multiple third-party sources that use this terminology I could accept that as generally accepted fact, but my impression from the writing I have seen about these games is that they are accepted as CCGs.

However, in my mind if they are not CCGs they don't deserve to be mentioned in this article, and certainly not in the lede. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... a little failure in logic here. Let's clear up. First, let's not get rash. Just because they may not be strictly defined as a CCG, doesn't mean they need to be obliterated off the face of the earth. That's just being melodramatic. History is important to keep in mind. But you may be right, they might be moved out of the lede. Second. Booster packs involve cards - that was the original definition. Cards are not computer games and computer games aren't cards. Booster packs on computer games are imitations of booster packs in real life and share the same name. One of electrons, the other something you can tangibly grasp and manipulate in your digits, sit around the table and enjoy with others. Yes - DCCGs pass some, but not all of the things required as laid out by the CCG test. 1 of 4 ain't enough (which is the rating DCCGs would get according to Miller). Miller also states you must have all 4 to be true as well as other minor considerations such as strategy being a key factor of the genre. The point is moot though, because 1. DCCGs are not physical objects, therefore, not cards (discussion should end here), but I'll continue... 2. DCCGs aren't sold in starter decks or booster packs, they don't use decks either - they're sold in electrons and light packets usually with digital money and "cards" are shuffled not in a deck but in an algorithm. By this logic, Counter-Strike would be legit military training using real guns. I digress.

A single primary source the Miller citation is not. Also, you're exaggeration, if not outright misrepresentation, that you need more than one source for anything is also way off base. Clearly you've missed the other sources this article also cites. The Miller citation is a single secondary source as Scrye is not beholden to any particular CCG or DCCG - still, a source is a source, and can make anything stick as long as its legit (otherwise anything is eligible for deletion), and if you can find me a source stating why they are true CCGs without flawed logic, we can entertain the idea of entering it into this article, but until then, the citation is perfectly acceptable. But keep in mind, Wikipedia already uses citations in other articles on what a card is, on what a computer game is, and on what a card game is. Consistency is also a key component of what Wikipedia is.

I think we're missing the big picture here though. I think we should be focusing on what language we can use to convey this to the readers. Since, I'm willing to agree that people are going to be offended by the word "true" because they have a horse in the race (hence this discussion?). What language do you propose to fix this? I think DCCGs greatly benefit from the splitting of this article, because DCCG can get much more attention and expanded on. I've already made a list of digital collectible card games and have expanded and added games to it. The main DCCG article however could use some history and game play additions though. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Success of a CCG

The introduction to the article (and snippets littered throughout the article) references Magic the Gathering, repeatedly, as the most successful card game. It's important when making a subjective claim like this to cite sources and a brief description of what constitutes a CCG's success. The Guinness World Records cite Yu-Gi-Oh! as the best-selling card game. I've no doubt that magic has had a greater impact on the introduction of CCGs (and could therefore be considered more successful), but the statements about Magic seem unjustified and a little biased.

This line in particular seems out of place - "Despite the dominance of Magic: The Gathering in the CCG market, a few others have met with success and have built a niche for themselves..." Niche is a strange term when many of theses CCGs have far greater audience numbers than MTG. I've no problem with this being here, but it must be justified and evidence cited. Thoughts? It's only an issue to me because any person looking to pick up a CCG will be under the impression that MTG has a stranglehold on other CCGs, which is only really true of markets outside Europe and not true at all of Japan. PiperKid (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You raise good points. But let's not play favorites, plenty of articles cite Magic as the most successful and best selling CCG, some of them academic papers - so be sure to take a real close look at the cited sources. Guinness is not the best source as they don't do their research. Take their article on "First modern trading card game". It's contrary to itself, which in turn makes them no authority on the matter and shows the lack of good journalism and casts doubt on to their ability to discern the facts. Note how the article talks about the "first modern trading card game" and in then in the very next sentence declares Magic the Gathering as "the origin, indeed the very Genesis, of TCGs". They're a joke and they aren't peer reviewed. The article you provided reads as an advertisement.

I understand YuGiOh has done well, and Pokemon too, and I agree that the word "niche" could be removed and the sentence reworked a bit, which I will do. As for your audience numbers, be sure you are differentiating between Collectible card games and their video game counterpart Digital collectible card games. If you are, then yes, you're correct, Hearthstone is a much more popular DCCG than Magic on Twitch.tv, but be careful equating views online to success in a monetary sense, because they are not the same.

However, if you are looking for hard numbers, you probably won't get them on Magic. They haven't released numbers in a long time, AFAIK. However, extrapolating known data of printed cards for older sets, which we have multiple sources for, Magic had at least 3 billion cards printed by 1995. The math can do the rest of the work for us, since we know an X number of sets have been released and the game is much more popular now than it was then (sources for that too), its safe to say, they've probably surpassed YuGiOh's number in the 90s, perhaps before YuGiOh was even a thing? I found this source from Magic's printer company that says by the end of 1994, they had printed over a billion playing cards of Magic the Gathering. It's elementary, my Dear Watson, if Magic has been out for 25 years now, and they printed a billion cards back in 1994... well that's 25 billion right there, assuming no growth, but we know Magic has grown per the sources. What YuGiOh needs is a new source that suggests a print run of about 1 trillion to catch up to Magic, I'd wager. So hardly unjustified or unbiased.

I will further comment that yes, Magic does have a stranglehold on a ton of other CCGs. All the dead ones of which there are many, for starters. It also has a stranglehold on many living ones. YuGiOh and Pokemon are definite exceptions though. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is original research. Nowhere does the article cite any reliable source to substantiate the claim that Magic is the most successful or dominant or best-selling. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you stated it is "not original research, you need to read the sources". This is blatantly false. I have read the sources, and nowhere do they support the claims made in the article. The first source mentions no such thing as Magic being the "most successful". And the second source directly contradicts the article's claim about "the dominance of Magic: The Gathering in the CCG market". In the cited source, Meople Magazine states Yu-Gi-Oh "is holder of the Guiness World Record for best-selling trading card game since 2009 with an unbelievable 25 billion cards sold worldwide." The source is stating that Yu-Gi-Oh is the best-selling CCG, not Magic, contrary to the claims made in the article. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You should review what the manual of style for Leads. Ledes use the entire article's sources, not just the sources in the lede. In fact, ledes generally speaking don't require sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As for other sources cited in the article for the claim of Magic being the most successful... This source states it is the most widely played, but it has two problems: it is a primary source from the developer Wizards of the Coast themselves claiming it is the most widely played (therefore the claim is questionable), and the source is from 2009 before Guinness announced in 2011 that Yu-Gi-Oh is the best-selling CCG (therefore the source is outdated, contradicted by more recent sources). This cited source is Guinness World Records, which does not support the claim of Magic being "most successful", but only states that it "remains enormously popular" and nothing more. Furthermore, the claim is contradicted by Guinness World Records themselves who state that Yu-Gi-Oh is the best-selling CCG. In other words, the article's claims are original research that clearly misrepresent and even contradict the cited sources. The only source which does make any such claim is Wizards of the Coast themselves claiming Magic is the most widely played CCG back in 2009. A more accurate representation of the source would be: "According to Wizards of the Coast, Magic the Gathering was the most widely played CCG as of 2009." Maestro2016 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The source could be considered primary, if this was an article about Magic the Gathering, but it's not. We use primary sources on wikipedia all the time - Take Minecraft's sales data on List of best-selling PC games as an example. If it claims it, we can use it on a page talking about CCGs. What I don't see is Yugioh or Pokemon sources stating they've dethroned Magic. However, your usage of Guinness as a source reveals you also haven't read the talk page here concerning Guinness about it contradicting itself even regarding Magic. Guinness basically operates as an advertisement agency and lacks any journalism credibility, and certainly isn't peer-reviewed. Guinness is quite frankly, just a cute little site that claims whatever it wants but no one can corroborate its claims. I know you can say the same for Wizards or Yugioh, but at least they don't seem to be contradicting themselves. I've added sources for the number of cards printed to stop this stupid favoritism game. I will also try to tone it down to be more neutral. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Arcmage

@Leitmotiv: Hi there. So, Arcmage is not an online game or a computer game, so it certainly isn't a digital collectible card game (according to that page's definition of it, in any case). Also, there is no requirement for a card game to have been printed in some official way, so I'm having a hard time understanding your resistance to my edits in this article. ~★ nmaia ^d 01:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree; an open-source game that you print out to get your cards is certainly a collectible card game. The fact the source is digital does not make that a digital CCG (which here really means a game played via computer, not a game made available through computers). I could use that logic to say that MtG is a digital CCG because you can buy packs online and wait for delivery of them (which of course is nonsense). --Masem (t) 01:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument that MTG is digital, is a spurious one, because these terms aren't mutually exclusive. Magic is clearly digital and physical. ArcMage was never published officially in paper. Therefore it makes a poor substitute as an example for this page, especially since the images provided are digital cards and not physical ones. The game could certainly be referenced in the history portion of this article if there were some secondary sources, but I'd be opposed to it, if this game never "officially" gets released. According to the official website, it hasn't been. Therefore, in my opinion, this game is a prototype only. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that we are very unlikely ever to get a free image of any current commercial printed CCG, a free image of an open-source, non-commercial game that is meant to be played with physical printouts of cards (not on a computer screen) is completely reasonable. --Masem (t) 02:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable too. But so far I'm not familiar with any product that is complete (there very well could be though, I don't stay up to date). ArcMage appears to only have 34 cards made. If ArcMage decides to release a first core set or expansion, I'd like to see a picture of it, preferably with a secondary source to cite some history and add context for a picture. The picture however, would have to be someone's printed out versions. I don't care if it was pasted on a Magic card, or printed out on cheap card stock - so long as it's not digital representations of the cards, the image would suffice. Using digital images would be misleading the readers. Leitmotiv (talk)

Arcmage is a poor choice all around as a representative for this article.

According to its own page, the cards "are not officially released, nor finished"; perhaps they never will be? According to their website you download them - this makes it a digital card game (by the very definition of digital - also the DCCG article says "usually" played online - it's not restricted to that). Having them printed out by your local printer doesn't make it a legitimate release (there is no publisher). Or there's the alternative, that maybe the downloads are intended for something like LackeyCCG? As for requirements, there is the secondary source requirement. The game is a poor representative in that it doesn't appear to have any secondary sources to provide substance to this article. So far, nothing about this game appears to be finished.

The problem I have with Arcmage is 1. It hasn't been released in any official manner yet. 2. It's primary format is digital. The pictures you took from their page are digital. This article is about physical CCGs. Your pictures are not representative of that @NMaia:. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding, but like Masem said, I understood DTCG to essentially mean video games. In no sense does its Wikipedia article hint that Arcmage could be an instance of it. Secondly, the present article makes no mention that CTGs absolutely need to be physical, or even published. Additionally, being released officially complies to which requirement for a CTG? None either. It's an open source project, things are almost always unfinished, by definition. Should we delete the article for Hurd because it has never had an official release?

I'm not even talking about the notability of Arcmage itself. It may or may not be notable, that's beside the point, but the artwork in its cards is typical of fantasy card games, and therefore useful to illustrate this article. ~★ nmaia ^d 12:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NMaia: You just may be misunderstanding. It appears the game can also be used on LackeyCCG, which is just a "computer program". And, yes, in some sense it does hint at the possibility as I've laid out above. Also this article does specifically say physical (see previous talk discussions above) as defined by the links it directs to. A card game is played with cards. A card is defined as physical objects made out of cardboard and so on. If it doesn't meet that criteria, it's probably a digital card game or both.

I think you should probably familiarize yourself with wikipolicy. Something has to be noteworthy for inclusion; generally speaking this means it needs secondary sources, or else it may come off as a primary source trying to advertise which is strictly not allowed. As for something being officially released, you need to look up the definition of "collectible". It needs to be printed in physically for it to be considered a collectible. For the purposes of this article, ArcMage doesn't qualify yet, and may never - again see previous discussions on this talk page. You may argue that the game is a trading card game instead, and I'd argue no it's not, since no one needs to trade cards that are printed on demand, and furthermore, I'd consider this game to perhaps not even be a CCG/TCG because there is no randomization of the cards upon purchase, which is the definition laid out by the sources provided in this article.

It seems to me, you need to do some serious reading on the sources of this article, as well as this discussion page. You may have argued me into a new position of ArcMage doesn't fit the requirements of a CCG at all, and is an ECG instead: Nothing is collected nor traded. You essentially own all the cards from the get go and print on demand. The game doesn't even meet the requirements of being a collectible, and certainly nothing is ever traded. New thoughts to consider. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ngoeminne (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Hello there, I'm the lead developer on Arcmage, and I'll clarify a bit our current status.@Leitmotiv:@NMaia:@Masem:

1. Arcmage offers its cards in both digital (download) and physical form with a CC-BY-SA4 lic.
2. Arcmage can be played with hard copies or online through our website or through our tabletop simulator integration (so the game is playable online as in real life)
3. Arcmage has three complete sets 'pre-released' to the public (Rebirth, Enchanted Realms, New Horizons), in our case that means the cards are ready, play-tested, and official. The reason why we don't give it the 'release' status is that we could still discover small typos, or some that a card rule needs clarification. We make the player aware that when they buy or print a hard copy of a card, it might be updated slightly in the future. Other games use 'errata' or 'rulings' to fix mistakes on their cards, we however just change them.
4. Arcmage cards can be collected, and/or traded, the source where they come from is in irrelevant (bought through the arcmage site, or downloaded and printed at home, or by a professional printing service), however it has definitely not a pay-to-win or a booster-lottery business model.
5. Whether Arcmage qualifies for inclusion in the CCG article is entirely up to you, it does however has a large set of common properties
   • it offers pre-game deck building
   • there's a base rule set that is overruled by each card-rule
   • it is turn based, and has different phases in a turn
   • it has a typical fantasy-style lure
   • there are base sets and expansions
   • it can be played in different formats (sealed decks, draft,...)
6. At Arcmage we talk about CCG as Collaborative/Customization card game.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

If it's a customization card game or any variation of, and not a collectible, which it appears it isn't, then calling it a CCG is an oxymoron. I see no reason to mention this game on this article or the digital collectible card game. I don't see a home for it anywhere. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

KanColle is not a CCG

Please see Talk:Kantai_Collection#Collectible_card_game?_I_think_not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: 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)

@Leitmotiv: 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 ([1]) 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)

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)

@Leitmotiv: 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)

@Piotrus: 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)

Lede and sourcing.

Let's start with the big problem on the lede: reducing down the prior lede, you get "A collectible card game ... is a strategy card game created in 1993..." which is wrong. It is a type of game, one that combines strategy card games with the idea of trading cards, with the first example of such a game being MTG that was created in 1993.

And most of the other changes I was doing was to reorder what was already there to actually get to the basics of what one actually does in a CCG in very broad terms, which the current version of lede completely ignores. Yes, we can't describe every variant of CCG but we can describe very high level concepts that cards represent facets of the theme of the game.

Do note that this article as a whole is terrible undersourced, so talking about sourcing issue in the lede is plugging one hole while 20 others are leaking, there's other major problems. Ideally, we should not need sources in the lede, these should be in the body unless we are quoting directly. --Masem (t) 07:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And as you'll see , I've reworked it with three sources (reused) that hit all the key points. I still think that's overkill for a lede but that meets your sourcing concern. --Masem (t) 08:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, let's do this @Masem: First, the problem I see with your current edit, is that you seem to have a problem with CCGs being created in 1993 which you gloss over and put in the History section. There are ample sources which are not disputed that Magic was the first CCG, which de facto means, the CCG was created in 1993. That is important information to have in the very first sentence or two of the lede. Why you felt it necessary to move it and change the language, is not explained in your edits. Second, you're being hyperbolic when you say "big problem" adding by saying it's "wrong". It's still a strategy card game , but you want more clarity and I'm okay with that. I can compromise and suggest adding another descriptor if you think that is needed. However, it's a bit silly to suggest it's a "type" of game. Of course it's a type of game, since we've clearly had it listed as a strategy card game for a long time; again redundant to call it a type of game when the lede describes what type of game it is. However, removing the statement of "playing cards" with trading cards suggests playing cards aren't a factor? I think you're putting too much weight on one or the other and creating a false dichotomy (the other being "trading cards"). How about we keep both, because the game is tradeable, and they certainly are playing cards. In fact, I would argue, that the playing aspect of the game is more prominent than the trading aspect, which distinctly sets CCGs apart from things like baseball cards. It was the playable aspect that didn't make CCGs just another flash in the pan.

As for sources in the lede, generally speaking sources aren't needed in ledes, because that information isn't disputed, and is backed up by sources in the main body. Having sources in the lede is possible though and I'm not opposed to it, but the way I have written it, is following standard procedure by summarizing the content and source material that already exists in the main body. I agree the article lacks gaps in other areas of the article, but not really as far disputed content is concerned. Why you deleted the source and sentence about what "successful CCGs" look like, is also not covered in your edit summaries. Successful CCGs are another de facto type of fact, because those that aren't successful, don't have many cards, and people like to know how many cards Magic, Pokemon, or Yugioh have. And it gives a sense of just how many cards living CCGs have. You shouldn't delete sources unless you have a good reason, and I'd argue that you should probably talk about it first before being bold (because you don't explain your edits satisfactorily).

I don't agree with your edit of "the first recognized" because that is wishy washy language suggesting there is an alternative. No, there is no alternative. The sources explicitly state Magic is the first. It is not the first recognized, it's simply the first. There is not another contender for the first recognized CCG, which is why that sentence has to go back to the way it was. Yes, there are sources that state Magic is the first recognized, but they don't offer alternatives making their claims dubious; in contrast there are way more sources that do note it as the first because they're better sources. I also don't see the need to mention the Base Ball Card Game in the lede, it's such a minor footnote and its lack of prominence (or for that matter, it lacking substantial analogous traits to CCGs in many ways) is best left as nothing more than a curiosity in the History section, something I also kept as a compromise from much earlier edits (it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article at all). It's putting undue weight on that game which was never released commercially or even broke public awareness until later (debatable), and that's still giving it too much credit. So that has got to go too.

"Limited by available resources" should be deleted too. It's redundant and a kind of "duh" comment. Are players using unavailable resources? Of course not. How would one use unavailable resources? It reads as clutter and unnecessary language. Some minor language could be improved, which I will be doing. Other than that, I see no problems with your edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue on the first sentence is important here because you're missing the point (its not about the date so much). The text from before is this "A collectible card game (CCG), also called a trading card game (TCG), among other names,[note 1] is a strategy card game created in 1993 and consists..." The way that it is phrased suggests that a CCG is a singular game that was made once, which is obviously not right. If you keep it that way, the right statement is "A CCG is a type of card game first created in 1993 and consists..."

Now as the date factor, I'm not saying the history is not important, but it makes no sense to me to not connect 1993 to MTG and the rest of the brief summary of the history of CCGs in the lede. Introducing 1993 waaay at the top, and then waiting as long as your version does to get to MTG leaves the importance of the date unclear. In terms of encyclopedic summary of the date, and comparison to other game genre articles (both physcial/tabletop and video games), the first thing out the gate on other genre articles are the general way these play (eg defining what they are first), then, if possible, some type of history/key example summary.

As a note with sourcing, we need to avoid using first-party sourcing for things like how many cards are current in MTG's library for example. Fortunately, I found a Forbes article to support that.

As for "limited resources" that's language at the source as a replacement for "mana" as that's not a term common to all CCGs. The idea is to briefly summarize that the player can do a limited amount of actions on their turn, they are not free to do everything forever. --Masem (t) 19:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay I get. Add type at the beginning. I'm on board. I think you didn't explain yourself in a way I could grok it. As for "1993" you are changing the language which I don't like. It should stay in the first two sentences, and repeated in the History. Changing it to "recognized" is bringing up previous talks that have been settled, or no rebuttal offered. People want to know when the CCG was created and which was the first - that's prime lede material, and because it's often disputed (for some reason), it's got to be cleared up right away, first thing. It's not like we're talking about a long diatribe, we're talking about a quick mention of the year. Easily insertable.

Just so you know, first-party sources are okay in some cases (this being one of them), however, there technically is no primary source for CCG. Because CCG is not a company, nor an official product. I would say in this case it's probably secondary sourcing? Perfectly fine to use in some cases like this one, especially in regard to official numbers when needed. It's not like Wizards of the Coast is making a spurious or disputed claim. It's a suitable source in this instance, especially because it's consistently the most up to date source and we don't need to keep updating the source with a new one.

"Limited by available resources" is still redundant and clutter language. If you don't want to remove it, I suggest rephrasing it. Honestly, the better solution is to delete it for brevity. We don't need to explain exactly how CCG games work in the lede. If you want to "briefly summarize", my recommendation is to delete it outright rather than protract it. You should drop by the article Principle of Some Astonishment to see what I'm getting at. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done some compromise edits. I agree that the baseball game is too trivial to note and that there's no need to waffle on MTG being the first, so I have ended the first sentence to say, " with the first being MTG in 1993." so that it gets that point in there right away. I found that helps later to your point on the # of cards in a game, where I've added that MTG has now 20000 cards (sourced to third party from last year), but now with the benefit of introducing MTG prior. And I ditched the resource stuff as I couldn't find a way to word it cleanly, just that randomness of the shuffle and playing cards per turn does remain important to the game (you aren't constructing a deck to be drawn in a specific order). --Masem (t) 20:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The WotC source is better and should be there. Your source is going to be outdated within about a year making the WotC source better. We're not citing disputed content, we're citing an official source for correct numbers. There is no controversy using a first-party source in this instance. Instead we are supplanting a perfectly fine source with one that will have to be replaced constantly, creating unnecessary workload when those third party sources are regurgitating what the first-party source is claiming. Totally unnecessary edit.

The reason I kept The Base Ball Card game in the article is because it is disputed content. Some people think it's the first CCG. By citing sources showing it is not, eliminates the possibility it will get reinserted (and I had some good sources there). I guess I'm okay with outright deleting it, but keep in mind, we may be facing people looking to reinsert it down the road. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we have a category for out of print CCGs?

For most games, being out of print is not a major issue, but I think for CCGs it is more relevant because they often rely on a tournament scene that stops when the game stops being supported, and as well as on the continuous expansions, wheres most board games or computer games do not. Thoughts? PS. I've created a Category:Defunct games, but right now it is mostly for Category:Inactive online games, with one exception being Golem Arcana, a wargame that had an online sever/app that is now offline. I guess the same logic as for CCGs can also apply a bunch of miniature wargames too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with calling them "defunct". "Out-of-print" or "discontinued" yes, but as long as someone still has the cards or minis, and an opponent also willing to play, they can still play the game, even if it's not part of some sort of organized play. That is just as true for in-print games as well.

I for one have never played a single game of Magic: The Gathering in any organized tournaments, but I have played the game, and still own a couple of old decks. Even if the game were to be discontinued tomorrow and no new cards ever produced again, and all official leagues were immediately shut down (an exceedingly unlikely occurrence, to be certain, one that is practically impossible), that doesn't mean I could never play the game again. To me that is what "defunct" means, that it impossible to play. That is a possibility for an online game, as if there's no server to host the game there's no way to play, but for a physical tabletop or card game, that doesn't hold. So I don't think it's a great analogy. oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't even see a similar category for "out of print books", which I am going to go on the basis that they can always be printed again, like physical CCG. The only thing with defunct games which typical rely on a server to run them is that even though someone could publish the game again, there are copyright and license issues that without the server being run, the game is unplayable (There is a DCMA exemption for this but only for museums and the like). As such I think the only "defunct video games" as a category make sense. A card game out of print can always be brought back into print with far less hassle , if you get what I mean. --Masem (t) 04:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oknazevad and Masem: You both make good points, but consider the following cases: 1) Golem Arcana, a miniature board game that is mostly unplayable as it heavily relied on a discontinued online component. Some people house rule it, but it is very much defunct for quite a few (I think right now it can be hacked to have some functionality on Anrdoid, but if you have an iOS device, you are out of luck). 2) Consider what happened to Android LCG or many CCGs that are out of print: they are not unplayable, but they are definitely not in the same shape as when they were still actively supported with expansions and tournaments. This is something that should be marked somehow. They were not de-established, but it is clear something major happened to each such title when the official support ended, something that hasn't happened to MtG or other card games (or miniature games) that are still 'alive'. Comparison to the books is iffy, since reprinting a book is much easier than reviving a "dead" CCG or miniature lines (likely due to the need for more capital...). To the best of my knowledge, why book reprints are a commonplace thing, no CCG or miniature line was ever revived (now, there were 'new editions, like Doomtown CCG -> Doomtown LCG, and such, but generally they don't allow usage of old cards; with miniatures, I think it is weirded as sometimes you can use old minis in new editions, but then we get into the entire customization aspect and the thin line between what's allowed and what's not, proxies, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but in the first case the online component is pretty distinct and makes it a special case. But for the others, while more difficult to get a game going it's not impossible, so I think "defunct" is the wrong choice of word. "Discontinued" or "out-of-print" I think are more accurate for a category name. The same adjective could be used for RPGs as well. Of course, incompatibilities in newer editions, which applies to RPGs an minis games both, doesn't really render a game "defunct" or "discontinued", so I don't think any category should include those. oknazevad (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer Category:Discontinued games over the out-of-print, and I don't think there is many point in categorizing out-of-print books (hard to check/define, but existence of the oop games category could make people want to create one for books and it would be a major headache). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of print will suffice. Defunct suggests the game is no longer playable. It is also an ambiguous term. Out of Print tells you all you need to know. Discontinued is also fine, but Out of Print seems to be established. Either of these two is fine in my opinion, but I am strongly against defunct. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I just want to stress, though, that I have yet to see any category at all for anything equating for "out of print" or "discontinued" published worked, short of Category:Defunct games and that being for the online games that lack servers to play on. Whether that is become no one has opted to categorized out of print works, or that there is some other reason , I don't know, but I would make sure about this before rushing to create new categories. --Masem (t) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Good points. The way I look at it, is most games are out of print, and that's not a notable distinction worth categorizing. That's like 98% of all games. What is a notable category is what games are still in print. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think this could be handled better by a list, asit is more interesting to the reader, whereas being discontinued is more 'normal', and I don't think a list of discontinued CCgs would be that useful. Listing ongoing CCGs in a list and moving them to a discontinued category seems like it would be a good compromise to me. What do you think? (Also, I don't think we have any category tree for things that are 'still in print/ongoing'?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There already is a list that notes if a CGG is live or dead. It's linked in the article we are discussing at the moment. I don't think any new lists or categories are really necessary. If you were to throw a dart at a wall of all the CCGs ever made, 99 times out of 100 you would hit one that is no longer in print. You're essentially going to tag all the CCGs with what we already know - they're out of print. Maybe it would be better to find a source noting that most CCGs don't last long. Each dead CCG article should start out by saying it is "an out of print CCG". I've edited a couple dozen that way (maybe more); no doubt more need to be edited to include that. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

TCGs and CCGs are not the same.

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)

This needs to be sourcable; very few sources consider a difference between the two. --Masem (t) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)