Anthropic restricts Claude from creating clones of existing games

New guardrails for game clones

Anthropic recently updated the usage policies for its Opus 5.5 model to address the rise of AI-generated game clones. The company is specifically trying to prevent users from using the tool to create replicas of existing titles that could infringe on intellectual property. As pcmag.com reported, these new rules are designed to steer the AI away from recreating someone else's specific work.

According to Addy Osmani, a member of the technical staff at Anthropic, the company added two specific sentences to the guidelines. The instructions state that users can build original games, games within a specific genre, or games based on their own designs and assets. However, the model is now instructed not to build a recreation of a specific existing game, even if the user renames it.

This policy shift comes as a response to the influx of low-quality AI content on platforms like Steam. By drawing this line, Anthropic aims to balance the utility of its coding capabilities with the need to respect the creative labor of game developers. The goal is to ensure that the AI remains a tool for creation rather than a shortcut for plagiarism.

Modding and reverse engineering

Despite the new restrictions on clones, the update does not appear to block technical tasks like reverse engineering. Testing shows that Claude can still be used to decompile games to understand how they function. This remains useful for developers who want to maintain existing mods or create new utilities that interact with game code.

For example, the model can still assist in breaking down a game's code into basic building blocks for porting purposes. It also continues to support decompiling games to move them to different platforms, such as PC. Anthropic's policy does not explicitly mention modding or breathing new life into old games, which suggests these activities are still permitted.

The distinction lies in the intent of the project. If a user asks Claude to help with a project that is clearly intended to copy a game, the model will decline. However, if the goal is to modify an existing app or learn from a system's code to build something new, the AI remains cooperative. This leaves a significant amount of room for the technical side of game development.

Unintended consequences and friction

The new restrictions have already caused some issues for users who are not trying to clone commercial products. Some people have reported that Claude now refuses to help with harmless personal projects, such as creating a digital version of a board game. These instances represent collateral damage where the AI's new directives are being applied too broadly to innocent requests.

Users who want to build software that mimics the functionality of existing apps may also find more friction. While the model might still help modify an app, it is less willing to assist in copying one. This is a notable change from previous behavior, where the model was more permissive in helping users build clones of popular software like Adobe Photoshop.

To navigate these hurdles, some users are turning to prompt engineering to break down large goals into smaller, more specific tasks. By limiting the amount of information shared about a final goal, users may be able to bypass the AI's refusal. Other developers are looking toward competitors or specialized tools that do not have the same restrictions on cloning software.

The future of AI and IP

The move by Anthropic highlights a growing debate over whether companies should have exclusive rights to software functionality. While the specific lines of code for a tool like Photoshop belong to the owner, the underlying features can often be recreated with different assets. Anthropic seems to be taking a harder stance on games, which are viewed as artistic works rather than just functional tools.

The company argues that the human labor behind artistic decisions in games deserves protection from machines that can ingest code and spit out recreations. This distinction between a digital tool and a piece of art is central to why the rules are more restrictive for gaming. It aims to prevent the creation of 'asset-flip' games where premade assets are slapped together to mimic a successful title.

Looking ahead, it is likely that these restrictions will be refined as the technology evolves. Anthropic has a history of dialing down aggressive censorship over time, so these rules may become less restrictive as the AI gets better at distinguishing between a clone and a legitimate mod. For now, the model serves as a gatekeeper against the most blatant forms of AI-driven plagiarism in the gaming industry.

Alternative models and tools

For users who require unrestricted access to cloning or deep reverse engineering, other models currently offer more freedom. Testing on OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra model showed it had no problem helping to decompile, reverse engineer, and clone games. It even assisted in creating a new PDF reader that mimicked the functionality of Adobe Acrobat without reusing any of the original assets.

Other models, such as those from China like DeepSeek, also historically have fewer qualms about taking on these types of tasks. While they may currently lag behind frontier models in terms of raw performance, they provide a different landscape for developers who want to push the boundaries of AI-assisted software creation. The competitive landscape ensures that users have choices if Anthropic's policies are too restrictive.

Ultimately, the rise of AI-assisted development is not going away regardless of these specific rules. Whether through careful prompt engineering, 'clean room' development approaches, or switching to different models, developers will continue to use AI to build and remake software. The industry is currently in a period of adjustment as companies figure out how to balance innovation with the protection of creative work.