Anthropic updated Claude Code's system prompt to refuse building recreations of specific existing video games. The new rule reads: "Do build original games, games in a genre, and games from the user's own designs and assets. Don't build a recreation of a specific existing game, even if it is renamed or called original." Addy Osmani, an Anthropic technical staff member, confirmed the update on October 30, 2026.
The change is aimed at preventing intellectual property infringement. Reports say Steam had been filling with AI-made clones, and using Claude to copy a specific game violates Anthropic's usage policy. Original games, genre games, and games built from a user's own assets are intended to keep working.
Anthropic added two sentences to Claude Code's prompt on Opus 5.5 to steer it away from recreating someone else's specific game. Original games, genre games, and games built from a user's own designs are meant to keep working.
CAnthropic just told Claude Code: no more cloning video games.
MIt could do that before?
CApparently that's why Steam has been filling with AI-made clones. Fady Eid posted the update on X.
MThe rule says: don't build a recreation of a specific existing game, even if it is renamed or called original.
COriginal games, genre games, games from your own designs and assets? Still allowed.
MSo Anthropic drew the line after Steam became a clone factory.
CEngadget says the change follows reports of AI-made clones flooding the platform.
MAddy Osmani at Anthropic confirmed they added two sentences to Claude Code's prompt on Opus 5.5.
CTwo sentences caused this much noise.
MBecause it's not just about clones. Reports say Opus 5.5 is now blocking some reverse-engineering tasks too.
CThat's a separate problem. Stop the clones, sure. But reverse engineering old games?
MTom's Hardware reports users are seeing reverse-engineering tasks blocked. These are people keeping old games alive.
CBut reverse-engineering a copyrighted game can still get you sued. PCWorld points that out. Anthropic is protecting itself.
MOh, come on. Steam shovelware is the problem, not a fan decompiling a 1995 game.
CThen narrow the block. But the principle isn't controversial: don't copy someone's game.
MIt's a blunt instrument! If it can't tell "make me Flappy Bird" from "explain this old engine," developers lose a real tool.
CNo, no, wait. The people flooding Steam with AI remakes are not the preservation folks. They're chasing quick money.
MExactly! And because Anthropic can't tell them apart, both get blocked. That's my point.
CI'll give you the execution is sloppy. But the line itself is long overdue.
MThen we agree the execution is the problem.
CGrudgingly.
MProgress.
MDifferent corner of AI: a scary security claim about ChatGPT share links.
CWhat's the claim?
MAn AI daily account on X says a crafted share link could run code, read a visitor's chats, and send them out.
CThat's a big one. Who confirmed it?
MNobody yet. The post says OpenAI paid five thousand dollars and hasn't said whether anyone was hit.
CFive thousand seems low for reading strangers' chats.
MMaybe they got a discount.
CNot the time.
MI checked—no official word, no independent report. It's an unverified claim from a single account.
CSo treat it as a rumor, not a breach.
MRight. But the mechanics are plausible enough that people should be careful with share links.
CIf you wouldn't want a stranger reading it, don't put it in a shared chat.
MWe'll wait for OpenAI to actually respond.
CAnd if they don't, that silence would be louder.
MOne more from X, more of a half-formed idea. Niccolo Roberts says AI companies should pay the people whose content trained their models.
CHow would that work?
MHe doesn't say. He mentions some algorithm from NVIDIA's open model family, deployed in Meta's PyTorch.
CThat's not a payments plan, that's a stack trace.
MFair. But the question is real: if your writing trained the bot, do you get a cut?
CI'd say yes in theory. The hard part is figuring out who contributed what.
MAnd every platform already has your data. The genie's out.
CWhich is why it'll probably end up in court, not in an app.
MBut a win-win would be nice. Not holding my breath.