Hasbro CEO Reiterates That AI Isn't Used to Make D&D Because of the Game's Audience and Creators

While Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks is a big fan of AI, he reiterated in a recent interview that the technology is not used to make Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. Recently, Cocks sat down with the Verge to discuss Hasbro's business and in particular how the company uses AI. While Cocks gave several examples of how AI is integrated within the company (it has a Peppa Pig AI provide feedback on Peppa Pig toys, for instance), he stated that not every facet of the company currently uses AI. "From a creative context, I think you have to think about it very carefully," Cocks said. "There are some brands that the audience, the creators, just don’t want it, so we don’t even have it in our pipelines for our video games or for Magic: The Gathering, or D&D. For things like toys where we’re basing it on existing IP, or like a long legacy of ideas, we are able to use it and use it pretty effectively."

The Dungeons & Dragons brand has strongly come out against AI, specifically when it comes to creative work. The brand currently bans the use of AI-generated artwork in its games and has repeatedly talked about how the game is made for people by people. However, Cocks has talked about his personal use of AI in his home D&D games and has strongly suggested integrating that technology into Dungeons & Dragons somehow.

Cocks previously bragged about how AI has been integrated into Hasbro's workflow, and the Verge interview talks about how AI has supplemented the business, mentioning that AI has been used to ideate toy ideas and simulate focus groups and play test labs. While Cocks sees AI as a way to "level up" the work of creatives as opposed to replacing them, he also admits that he's been wrong about technology disrupting the toy business before, specifically mentioning NFTs as an area that he got wrong in the past.

The interview also briefly mentioned the upcoming video game Dungeons & Dragons: Warlock, with Cocks noting that that game will be released in the "later part" of 2027.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can't control that. Nor should you.

Huh? That’s literally what regulation is.

Every generation decides what is "cool." Just because you hate GenAI doesn't mean GenAlpha is wrong for embracing it.

It’s not a matter of what I like or what’s cool. People can like whatever they want, but technology that works because of and enables rampant plagiarism, generates sexual content of people, including minors, without their permission, and creates serious cognitive debt in its users, needs to be regulated regardless of who thinks it’s cool. To say nothing of its considerable environmental costs.

This idea that there is a fundamental, objective "right" regarding AI generated content is old man BS. The world is rapidly changing.

When did I say there was an objective right? I am advocating for what I believe to be right.

We all remember the discomfort of blogs overtaking traditional journalism in our information ecosystem.

I don’t, actually, but that’s neither here nor there.

People really desperately need to stop pretending that their comfort zone is somehow "right." It's weakness.

Again, this isn’t about anybody’s comfort zone. It’s about a technology built on and enabling intellectual property theft, enabling illegal pornography, and damaging both the minds of its users and the world we live in. I don’t care who’s comfortable with what, that’s a technology there needs to be legal guardrails placed on, yesterday.

 

[Tea Cozy]

Regarding Gen Alpha and AI (for better or worse):

Pew Research recently published their report on American teens, their parents, and AI.

How Teens Use and View AI | Pew Research Center

Just over half of U.S. teens say they've used chatbots for help with schoolwork, and 12% say they’ve gotten emotional support from these tools. Teens tend to view AI's future impact on their lives more positively than negatively.

www.pewresearch.org

Prior to this, the United States reported the most concern over AI's impact in Pew's survey of multiple nations in 2025. 50% of Americans polled were "more concerned than excited" about the increased use of AI in daily life. In South Korea that percentage was only 16.

So how did teens and their parents in the country with the most trepidation respond (again, for better or worse)?

• "There is also a gap between parents’ perceptions and what teens are actually doing. When we asked teens themselves, 64% of U.S. teens reported using chatbots. This is 13 percentage points higher than what their parents say."
• The vast majority of American parents were comfortable with their teens using chatbots for searching for information, help with schoolwork, or for entertainment. Half were okay with their kids using chatbots for getting news. Not many were okay with their teens using chatbots for personal conversations or emotional support.
• 31% of teens surveyed said AI will have a positive effect on society over the next two decades. 34% think the impact will be equally positive and negative. 26% said AI's impact will be negative.
• "Teens are far more likely to say chatbots are helpful for schoolwork, rather than unhelpful. In fact, about a quarter of all teens say chatbots have been extremely or very helpful for completing their schoolwork, and another 25% say they’ve been somewhat helpful. Just 3% say these tools were of little to no help."
• "A majority of teens (59%) think using AI to cheat is a regular occurrence at their school – happening at least somewhat often."

Something really interesting: Only 37% of American teens thought AI would be worse at writing a song. 44% thought it would be better (21%) or the same (23%). The rest had no answer. A Morgan Stanley survey of Gen Z/Millennials found "50-60% of listeners 18-44 reporting 2.5-3 hours per week of AI music listening.” This seems to be happening mostly on YouTube and TikTok.

Morgan Stanley: Most Gen Zers and millennials in the US listen to about three hours of AI music a week

That’s enough AI music to last the run time of “Avatar.”...

sherwood.news

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Something really interesting: Only 37% of American teens thought AI would be worse at writing a song. 44% thought it would be better (21%) or the same (23%). The rest had no answer. A Morgan Stanley survey of Gen Z/Millenials found "50-60% of listeners 18-44 reporting 2.5-3 hours per week of AI music listening.” This seems to be happening mostly on YouTube and TikTok.

On a related note, I have to imagine the RPG background sound/sound effects/ambient music mini-industry is going to be in a lot of trouble, since "give me some daytime forest sounds with light, medieval-sounding happy traveling music" is something AI can already churn out pretty well and that's just going to get cheaper and more widely available.

I've spent a lot of money on Bandcamp buying RPG background sound tracks, but I wouldn't be surprised if those folks had already seen the peak of their financial success.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure what that means. The subject line says clearly that it's the audience, but the text suggests that it's the creators/developers.

"There are some brands that the audience, the creators, just don’t want it, so we don’t even have it in our pipelines for our video games or for Magic: The Gathering, or D&D."

 

[mamba]

Something really interesting: Only 37% of American teens thought AI would be worse at writing a song.

given what passes as music today, I tend to agree

 

[cbwjm]

mentioning that AI has been used to ideate toy ideas and simulate focus groups and play test labs.

This seems a little weird, I'm not sure AI works as a replacement for focus groups or play testing, I assume, toys and games and things. Imagine making a toy for 6 year olds and then wondering why they don't like it when the AI liked it.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I don’t have much of a dog in this fight (haven’t bought Hasbro / WOTC products since 2014) but this…

AI has been used to ideate toy ideas and simulate focus groups and play test labs.

Is an absolutely terrible idea that everyone who is a professional UX-er or market researcher knows is terrible idea. If you want to learn how your products or ideas work you put them in front of real people. To do anything else is the worst kind of solipsism and stupidity.

 

[Dire Bare]

There is a whole generation being raised on GenAI and they love it.

They do? They love it? Source?

Anecdotally, as a teacher of young teenagers . . . they use AI to cheat, but they were cheating before. They don't really understand AI. AI has evolved so fast it's left most teachers in the dust and we don't have the knowledge, experience, tools, training, or bandwidth to teach kids the ins and outs of using AI and how to do so ethically and effectively.

The AI cheating being done right now . . . is ridiculously easy to spot. But sadly, without me doing a forensic investigation to prove their guilt, my admin won't let me do anything about it but "grade fairly" . . .

But do my students love AI? They don't understand it enough to do so.

EDIT: Thanks for the links @Tea Cozy! Seems the current generation is split into thirds about the positivity of AI. That's not good, but it's also not, "The kids, they love AI!"

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For the most part it seems more or less what I suspected. WotC doesn't want to use AI stuff, and Cocks is not going to force them to at this point.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not sure what that means. The subject line says clearly that it's the audience, but the text suggests that it's the creators/developers. Either way, they've had a significant change in audience over the years, to an audience that they courted. Same with their creators/developers. They can't complain about what they want.

Perhaps this has been pointed out to you, but he specifically mentions the audience:

"There are some brands that the audience, the creators, just don’t want it, so we don’t even have it in our pipelines..."