Anthropic tells Claude Code to avoid game remakes, while keeping original games allowed

Anthropic has changed the instructions behind Claude Code to discourage recreating someone else’s specific game, while saying original game development should remain available. Confirmed on October 30, 2026, the change affects the tool’s prompt on Opus 5.5. One developer says refusals have interrupted paid projects, illustrating a disputed boundary around commissioned game work.

Two sentences, not a new model

The mechanism is a prompt update: instructions supplied to the coding tool, rather than a newly released model. Anthropic technical staff member Addy Osmani said the company added two sentences to steer Claude Code away from recreating specific games. An Anthropic spokesperson directed Game Developer to his statement.

Osmani tied the change to Anthropic’s existing prohibition on using Claude to infringe intellectual property. He said original games, games within a genre, and projects using the user’s own designs and assets were intended to keep working. That distinction makes the target a particular game’s recreation, not game development as a whole.

The more detailed wording circulating publicly came from X user Chasm. According to Game Developer, Chasm spotted the instruction on October 30 and said it had been pushed around October 27. The posted text told Claude not to recreate a specific existing game even if it was renamed or described as original. Chasm also said the rule could not be disabled; that detail was Chasm’s account, not part of Osmani’s confirmation.

A commissioned project tests the boundary

A concrete complaint appeared in an October 30 GitHub issue filed by user lerugray, who said they run Conflict Simulations LLC. The author described paid commissions to build personalized digital modules of board wargames for individual clients. They said the code was written from scratch using client-supplied materials, and that clients provided proof they owned the games.

An important correction in the issue narrows that description: the work was not publisher-licensed. The author withdrew an earlier use of the word licensed, saying instead that the builds were for clients’ personal use and were never sold or distributed publicly. They also said they honored publisher and designer opt-outs and avoided games with official digital editions. Those are the developer’s representations, not an independent finding that the work was authorized.

The reported sequence also complicates a simple before-and-after account. In a follow-up, the author said sessions continued the same work after the rule reportedly arrived. Refusals began only after they asked Claude whether the rule affected their projects. Clearing that session did not resolve refusals in sessions using the same repositories, they said. The technical cause remains unverified.

The author said some modules help older players and people unable to play in person. Their requested remedies focus on how professionals can challenge a refusal and learn about changes before work stops:

• Narrow the instruction to actual infringement rather than game-related work as a category.
• Provide a verification or exemption route for commissioned professional work.
• Document instruction changes of this scope in Claude Code’s changelog.

Osmani invited users to send him cases where Claude rejects something that belongs to them. That invitation offers a channel for disputed refusals, while his statement leaves Anthropic’s stated anti-recreation boundary in place.