Ryan Dancey & AEG Part Ways Following AI Comments

Ryan Dancey, the Chief Operating Officer of boardgame publisher Alderac Entertainment Group, no longer works for the company, following statements on social media where he claimed that AI could make most of the company's board games, and that D&D and Magic: the Gathering were the only new forms of gameplay in his lifetime. After another poster on LinkedIn claimed that "AI wouldn't come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos because it doesn't understand the human element of fun", Dancey responded that he had zero reason to believe that AI could not do such a thing.

"I have zero reason to believe that an Al couldn't come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos. I can prompt any of several Als RIGHT NOW and get ideas for games as good as those. The gaming industry doesn't exist because humans create otherwise unobtainable ideas. It exists because many many previous games exist, feed into the minds of designers, who produce new variants on those themes. People then apply risk capital against those ideas to see if there's a product market fit. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not. (In fact, much more often than not).

Extremely occasionally (twice in my lifetime: D&D and Magic: the Gathering) a human has produced an all new form of gaming entertainment. Those moments are so rare and incandescent that they echo across decades.

Game publishing isn't an industry of unique special ideas. It's an industry about execution, marketing, and attention to detail. All things Als are great at."

- Ryan Dancey​

The Cardboard Herald, a boardgame reviews channel, responded yesterday on BlueSky that "As you may have seen, [AEG] CEO Ryan Dancey stated that AI can make games “just as good as Tiny Towns or Flip 7 or Cubitos”, completely missing the inexorable humanity involved.We’ve spent 10 years celebrating creatives in the industry. Until he’s gone we will not work with AEG."

Today, AEG's CEO John Zinser stated "Today I want to share that Ryan Dancey and AEG have parted ways.This is not an easy post to write. Ryan has been a significant part of AEG’s story, and I am personally grateful for the years of work, passion, and intensity he brought to the company. We have built a lot together. As AEG moves into its next chapter, leadership alignment and clarity matter more than ever. This transition reflects that reality.Our commitment to our designers, partners, retailers, and players remains unchanged. We will continue building great games through collaboration, creativity, and trust."

Dancey himself posted "This morning [John Zinser] and I talked about the aftermath of my post yesterday about the ability of AI to create ideas for games. He's decided that it's time for me to move on to new adventures. Sorry to have things end like this. I've enjoyed my 10 years at AEG. I wish the team there the best in their future endeavors.

I believe we're at a civilizational turning point. That who we are and how we are is going to change on the order of what happened during the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions; and it's past time we started talking about it and not being afraid to discuss the topic. Talking about AI, being honest about what it can and cannot do, and thinking about the implications is something we have to begin to do in a widespread way. Humans have a unique creative spark that differentiates us and makes us special and we should celebrate that specialness as we experience this epic change.

For the record: I do not believe that AI will replace the work talented game designer/developers do, nor do I think it is appropriate to use AI to replace the role of designer/developers in the publication of tabletop games. During my time at AEG I developed and implemented polices and contracts that reflect those views. It's important to me that you know what I believe and what I don't believe on this particular topic, despite what you may have read elsewhere."

Whatever your position on generative LLMs and the like, when the COO of your company announces publicly that all of the company’s games could have been made by AI, it’s a problem. UK readers may recall when major jewelry chain Ratners’ CEO Gerald Ratner famously announced that the products sold in his stores were “trash”, instantly wiping half a billion pounds from the company’s value back in the early 1990s. The company was forced to close stores and rebrand to Signet Group. At the time the Ratners Group was the world's biggest jewelry retailer. Ratner himself was forced to resign in 1992. The act of making a damaging statement about the quality of your own company’s products became known as “doing a Ratner”.

Dancey was VP of Wizards of the Coast when the company acquired TSR, the then-owner of Dungeons & Dragons. He is also known for being the architect of the Open Game License. Dancey has worked as Chief Operating Officer for AEG for 10 years, and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company, second-in-command after the CEO, John Zinser.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

From the typical user's point of view, what is the material difference between it going to China as opposed to Silicon Valley?

In either case, my data goes into the hands of powerful forces who don't give a whit about me, and are more than happy to make a buck out of turning that data against me or otherwise using it without regard to my wishes. Like I should care what nationality that goon is?

That is a good argument for giving it to China, since both Chinese corporate and authorities will care less about you and your specific data than a US corporate.

 

[Scribe]

Personal use is there to drive brand acceptance, to ease enterprise workforce uptake. You'll pick up the enterprise tools more willingly if you use them at home already.

We use them at work because we are told to, and usage is monitored...

 

[Umbran]

We use them at work because we are told to, and usage is monitored...

Ugh.
That sounds like a fine opportunity for malicious compliance.

 

[Epic Meepo]

On the one hand, yeah, on the other, do you want your data going to China?

I don't use gen AI, so China won't be getting any user data from me if they reverse engineer Silicon Valley's gen AI services.

I'd be much more interested in running open source AI locally for non-generative purposes. In theory, that wouldn't require me interacting with either China or Silicon Valley.

 

[Umbran]

I'd be much more interested in running open source AI locally for non-generative purposes.

So, the AI we are talking about here is a specific type - generative AI. You can't run a generative AI for "non-generative purposes" any more than you can run an internal combustion engine without burning any fuel.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We use them at work because we are told to, and usage is monitored...

Same. We have reporting on ensuring our features and stories are written and refined by AI, and it's mandatory.

 

[LordEntrails]

And since there is still someone out there who makes the occasional buggy whip, buggy whip making is still A-OK?

I get the fear and rational that AI will wipe out professional artists. Maybe it will, but I don't believe it will. It will devastate much of the market though(~50-80%??). Until it actually happens, or gets close to it, it's only a fear or speculation. Earlier folks were demanding data to support their examples, but refused to show any data that could be more than a fear for AI and artists. IF you demand data to support a perspective, you should provide data to support your perspective.

 

[The Firebird]

I get the fear and rational that AI will wipe out professional artists. Maybe it will, but I don't believe it will. It will devastate much of the market though(~50-80%??). Until it actually happens, or gets close to it, it's only a fear or speculation. Earlier folks were demanding data to support their examples, but refused to show any data that could be more than a fear for AI and artists. IF you demand data to support a perspective, you should provide data to support your perspective.

I think artists have good reason to fear, just as technical people have reason to fear. I'm not sure how close is 'close'--but people who use this stuff think we are within a couple of years of driving out entry level technical jobs. That seems merited, imo.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think artists have good reason to fear, just as technical people have reason to fear. I'm not sure how close is 'close'--but people who use this stuff think we are within a couple of years of driving out entry level technical jobs. That seems merited, imo.

I don't disagree that artists and creators should be fearful. The market is tough as it is, reducing it in half or more absolutely would have huge impacts on those professions. And if I was in those fields I would be seriously considering how to continue to make a living, in the profession or in another. Just like I have done and continue to do for my profession. And I've had those conversations with my spouse and kids.

Just because I think AI technology is in general a good thing (and inevitable in many ways), it does not mean I don't think it will not result in huge negative impacts to many people. And it doesn't mean I don't think people should not be fearful and concerned.