Anthropic Limits Claude Code From Recreating Video Games as Indie Devs Report False Positives

Anthropic has limited Claude Code from recreating specific existing video games. Independent developers have also reported refusals involving projects they say are legitimate, including commissioned game-related work.

Users first spotted the restriction around 27 October in the prompt used by Claude Code with Claude Opus 5.5, Anthropic's AI model. It tells the tool not to recreate a specific existing game, even if the project is renamed or described as original. Anthropic says the instruction is intended to prevent intellectual property infringement, while original games, genre-based projects and work using a user's own designs and assets should remain supported.

Anthropic Adds Server-Side Restrictions to Claude Code

The two-sentence instruction tells Claude to build original games, games within established genres and projects based on a user's own designs and assets. It prohibits recreating a particular existing game, including requests that attempt to disguise the recreation by changing its name.

Users identified the server-side configuration flag as 'tengu_heron_brook'. The instruction is delivered remotely by Anthropic rather than through a conventional software update, and users have reported no local setting to disable it.

Addy Osmani, a member of technical staff at Anthropic, confirmed the change on 30 October. He said the company had added the two sentences to Claude Code's prompt for Opus 5.5 because using Claude to infringe intellectual property violates its usage policy. Osmani said original games and projects using users' own designs and assets should continue to work, and invited developers experiencing incorrect refusals to contact him.

Developers Report Refusals on Paid Game Projects

One detailed complaint was filed by the operator of Conflict Simulations LLC, a business that produces personalised digital modules of board wargames for individual clients. In an issue posted to Anthropic's public GitHub repository on 30 October, the developer said Claude Code had begun refusing commissioned work that the business had completed using the tool for months.

The developer said the modules use original code written from scratch, with materials supplied by clients who own the physical board games. The projects are intended for individual use rather than public distribution. The developer initially described the work as 'licensed' but subsequently corrected the statement, acknowledging that the projects did not have authorisation from the game publishers.

Ownership of a physical board game does not automatically transfer copyright ownership or grant permission to reproduce or adapt its protected material. The complaint records the developer's account of interrupted paid work, but does not establish that the projects had approval from the relevant rights holders.

The developer said the work continued after the new instruction appeared and that refusals began only after Claude was asked whether the restriction applied to the projects. According to the GitHub issue, Anthropic's automated support system initially said the policy applied without exception. The developer said the requests were later escalated to human staff and a formal appeal was filed.

Other Claude Code users have reported refusals involving game development, reverse-engineering and troubleshooting. The causes are not always clear, however, and some complaints concern separate cybersecurity safeguards rather than the new game-specific instruction.

Anthropic Faces Questions Over Rule Enforcement

The restriction comes amid concerns about AI-assisted copying among independent game developers. Alliance Arts, an independent game publisher, announced on 16 October that it was cancelling the public release of the Drunken Goddess Reflux demo scheduled for 19 October. It replaced the public demonstration with closed play sessions, citing concerns that the game's presentation and gameplay could be imitated using AI or other tools before launch.

The studio did not report an existing AI-generated copy of the game. Its decision reflected concerns about exposing an unfinished title through a public demonstration. The case illustrates why smaller developers are considering tighter controls over how unreleased games are shown and distributed.

Anthropic has not published detailed criteria explaining how Claude Code assesses requests that fall between genre-based development and recreating a particular title. Nor has it released figures showing how frequently the new instruction produces refusals or how many involve projects that do not seek to reproduce existing games.

Osmani has invited developers to report cases in which legitimate projects are refused, but Anthropic has not outlined a formal verification process for commissioned work. How the company will distinguish authorised development from attempts to reproduce existing games remains unresolved.