Talk:Digital collectible card game

Early DCCG adaptations of TCGs
Article says the first DCCG was Chron X, but Magic The Gathering: Shandalar predates it!

Also, not sure how to write it in but still felt like dumping my thoughts somewhere -- I really feel like there needs to be more WP:WEIGHTy mention of early handheld DCCGs based on phyical CCG (TCG as they were known) franchises. I'm thinking at least of Pokémon TCG and the slew of Yu-Gi-Oh games. Other less historical examples which I'm sure there was SIGCOV about include Mega Man Battle Chip Challenge, the Baten Kaitos games, and Metal Gear Acid series. Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah this article is brand new. Plenty to expand upon. Be bold! Leitmotiv (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Helpful clarification re. first DCCG
Salv is correct. Chron X claimed to be the first online CCG, but not the first digital CCG. It also claimed to be the first digital game that included card purchasing, collecting, and trading with other users. I believe the above are stated on the game's page. Architeuthis666 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Online is the same as digital. Was Chron X ever released in paper? If not, then it takes the cake. I don't really care one way or the other, but if there was no alternative to online, than it is by definition, digital. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, stumbled on this. I was the founder of Digital Addiction so I was watching ChronX with much attention in 1997. The distinction they made between digital and online was valid, imo because there were gameboy/handheld versions of CCGs previous to ChronX, but they were not connected to each other through the internet, thus the distinction between digital and online. If I remember correctly the handheld Pokémon game even had some rudimentary peer to peer trading, etc, but it was largely unused since you had to be in the same room to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameyharvey (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ChronX may not be the first digital, but it is certainly digital. Is there a source stating it was the first online? I get the distinction and maybe I should have been more clear considering the nuance here. Online is most certainly digital, but the inverse is not always true. In both digital and online digital ccgs, neither use physical cards. Digital encompasses both, but online allows more inter-connectivity. I'm gonna guess here, but did some handheld digital-ccgs allow hooking up through a cable to trade cards? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

How come no one yet added Axie Infinity here
201.178.203.185 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Loot box monetisation / compulsion loop missing from article.
CCG and Digital CCG depend upon, and pretty much invented, the Loot box monetisation, developed as a major approach used by free-to-play games in mobile gaming and video games in general... cf. the Loot box.

As you probably know, Loot boxes are considered part of the compulsion loop of game design to keep players invested in a game. cf. also, recent attempts at regulating Loot Boxes which are likely to affect DCCG. https://www.forbrukerradet.no/siste-nytt/loot-boxes-how-the-gaming-industry-manipulates-and-exploits-consumers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20040302 (talk • contribs)
 * We have to be careful of original research here. DCCG booster packs have not routinely been compared to loot boxes due to prior case law over physical CCG that have deemed physical boosters to be fine. That's not to say a discussion on the lines of loot box-tyoe issues isn't warranted, but we cannot make that connection. That report from the Norwegian consumers group does not specifically to DCCG boosters so we have to be careful. --M asem (t) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the link - the article from ign.com makes it clear that, outside of any such 'prior case' legal proceedings, booster packs are definitely identified as the same regardless of if they are CCG or DCCG - "According to Hodzic, these systems are certainly comparable to the card packs that you can purchase with Magic: The Gathering. It’s just the same thing in one way or another, so there is that randomness that goes there, and the poker machine-like experience that comes with it..


 * Likewise, there is no WP:OR. Between the IGN and the Norwegian article, along with the content on Loot box itself, there is plenty of corresponding content that determines the link. Directly from Loot box: A "loot box" can be named several different ways, usually related to the type of game that it appears in. A "loot box", "loot crate" or "lockbox" is often applied to shooter games since one obtains new equipable outfits or gear from it. Digital card games may use the term "booster pack" following from collectible card game roots.


 * Moreover, your reversion comment implies bias of your own - it seems you wish to silence the controversy, rather than to present it - WP:NPOV - NPOV articles describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.. Why delete (revert) what I wrote, unless your intent is denial? Instead, help to provide, through editing, an unbalanced description of the controversy. We are not here to be arbiters of the encyclopaedia.


 * For all I know, you belong to the DCCG game lobby, in which case it is likely that your intent would be to reject, refuse, and censor anything does not meet your position. But, and in that case, regardless of sponsorship, your duty is to recuse yourself from this (and related articles) due to WP:COI.


 * What I see on this page is a complete lack of anything to do with the controversy. We know that 10% of loot box revenue comes from DCCG (in the guise of booster packs). I would ask you, civilly, and with respect, to reconsider your position, or maybe we should enter WP:DR on this?


 * Without response, I shall revert your inexplicable revert – it is good behaviour to discuss before reverts. Following WP:DR, When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. I believe I am due an apology; and at the least an explanation. (20040302 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC))


 * First, no personal attacks. I have zero connections to any DCCG company, I am just interested in games.
 * Second, I am not denying that there should be a section on the question if booster packs from DCCG should be included. There probably is enough sources out there to do that (eg there's a new lawsuit contending hearthstone boosters are like gambling.) Just that how you added that section (at the top of the article, and how it was written) was not neutrally written. I am not in a place at the moment to flesh it out better, but I don't question the need for a section that evaluates the issue neutrally.--M asem (t) 14:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Great! I applaud both the edits and your civility. Thank-you for your understanding. (20040302 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC))

No one's gonna read this but
I moved this article to the category Video game genres (and also removed collectible card game from video game genres) and removed Multiplayer online games however it's still in the category Multiplayer online games in other a few languages (same logic with the other aforementioned thing, though not all languages have the article for digital collectible card game). There's not much I can do about it. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)