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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, you seem to not understand the point, here.

This is not about debating for correctness points. Folks pushing against AI are not doing so to be "right". They are doing so to prevent unnecessary harm before it happens. So, in the best of possible worlds, the harm never happens.

The point is to make clear that many of the likely outcomes are undesireable, so that those outcomes never occur. Finding proof that they do occur means the harm happened, and it is too late to avoid it.

As for who needs to prove what... it seems to me that if new a tool risks widespread loss of livelihood, the burden of proof that it'll be okay is on those arguing for the use of the tool.

 

[The Firebird]

This is not about debating for correctness points. Folks pushing against AI are not doing so to be "right". They are doing so to prevent unnecessary harm before it happens. So, in the best of possible worlds, the harm never happens.

There is something paradoxical here. The folks pushing against AI are largely doing it by downplaying the capabilities of the models. "They aren't reliable. They hallucinate. They can't do task X".

If all of that is true, then there isn't as much to worry about. There will be some disruption as VCs and CEOs go all-in, and it will take a few years for it to become apparent those were bad bets. But once the limits of AI become clear, they'll have to hire people again.

OTOH, if the AIs really are as capable as some humans--think the median entry-level worker, not someone at the top--then those jobs may never come back. Or, the AIs are only 80 or 90% as good, and that means good enough to destroy the jobs, but bad enough so the quality of stuff (art, for example) that we encounter is worse relative to when humans were employed.

So I think this question of what unnecessary harm will happen requires an understanding of what the AI models can actually do.

 

[Umbran]

There is something paradoxical here. The folks pushing against AI are largely doing it by downplaying the capabilities of the models. "They aren't reliable. They hallucinate. They can't do task X".

If all of that is true, then there isn't as much to worry about. There will be some disruption as VCs and CEOs go all-in, and it will take a few years for it to become apparent those were bad bets. But once the limits of AI become clear, they'll have to hire people again.

Two things:

1) Not necessarily. They might just accept the encrapification of work. Enterprise execs are generally pretty well shielded from the consequences of their choices these days.

2) Even if they do, that will be years of people losing their livelihoods. Those folks don't go into stasis while the execs get their heads screwed on straight. They lose their homes, and die when they can't afford their diabetes meds, and their kids miss opportunities to go to college. And so on.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

With recent news in the US . . . sadly I think I would be more comfy with the Chinese having all my personal data . . .

 

[HatWearingFool]

With recent news in the US . . . sadly I think I would be more comfy with the Chinese having all my personal data . . .

I’m definitely more comfortable with the Chinese government having my data than the american government and corporations.

 

[The Firebird]

Two things:

1) Not necessarily. They might just accept the encrapification of work. Enterprise execs are generally pretty well shielded from the consequences of their choices these days.

2) Even if they do, that will be years of people losing their livelihoods. Those folks don't go into stasis while the execs get their heads screwed on straight. They lose their homes, and die when they can't afford their diabetes meds, and their kids miss opportunities to go to college. And so on.

I noted both of these scenarios in my post.

 

[Umbran]

So I think this question of what unnecessary harm will happen requires an understanding of what the AI models can actually do.

It requires and understanding of how corporations will try to use them, whether they are good at those functions or not.

 

[Umbran]

I noted both of these scenarios in my post.

With respect, you seemed to completely ignore the impact on those who lose their jobs before re-hiring happens, if it ever happens.

I feel that including the homelessness and death and such is important, to keep people from thinking of this in the purely economic view of job losses. The human impact is relevant.

Like, if folks are apt to die, maybe be less surprised by the manner of the pushback?

 

[Epic Meepo]

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.

I wouldn't have made a post comparing the privacy risks of the gen AI services discussed in this thread to the privacy risks of other types of AI applications if I didn't understand what gen AI was. But thanks for clarifying what gen AI is for other posters who weren't aware of the difference.

 

[The Firebird]

With respect, you seemed to completely ignore the impact on those who lose their jobs before re-hiring happens, innit ever happens.

I feel that including the homelessness and death and such is important, to keep people from thinking of this in the purely economic view of job losses. The human impact is relevant.

Like, if folks are apt to die, maybe be less surprised by the manner of the pushback?

That's...a very uncharitable reading of my post, which explicitly notes years of disruption as a consequence. By 'disruption' I don't mean 'minor harms only'.