🔍 Read the full analysis: Take-Two CEO Calls AI Game Cloning ‘Ironic’—Here’s Why on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property during a November 9 interview about Anthropic’s new Claude Code restriction on recreating specific games. He said piracy could become more challenging but did not identify a particular clone or accuse either company of a specific infringement.
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said companies should protect their own and others’ intellectual property, responding to a question about Anthropic’s restriction on recreating existing games. In an IGN interview published November 9, he also said piracy was not a financial threat to Take-Two at present, though he views it as a creative concern and expects it to become more challenging.
The exchange took place in a phone interview with IGN managing editor Wesley Yin-Poole, published the evening Take-Two reported results for the quarter ended September 30. Yin-Poole asked about AI tools being used to clone games and then asked whether Take-Two would welcome Anthropic’s new restriction and want OpenAI to take similar steps.
“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s,” Zelnick replied. He added that if Anthropic and OpenAI are in the intellectual-property business, “it seems ironic on the one hand to stomp on someone else’s IP and hope that yours is protected.” The names of the companies were introduced in the interviewer’s question. Zelnick did not identify a particular product, cloned game or infringement case.
Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, included from version 2.1.317 published November 2, tells the model not to create a recreation of a specific existing game using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, even if the result is renamed or described as original. OpenAI’s usage policies prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights. The source report says it found no game-specific instruction in the open-source code of OpenAI’s Codex CLI.
AI coding agents and existing games · as of Nov 14, 2026
Prompt in, game out: where the line runs
Three example requests (illustrative, not real cases) and what each vendor’s published rules say about them.
- Example request
“An original racing game with my own art”own idea, own assets
Claude Code (Anthropic)AllowedRule text: build original games and games from the user’s own designs and assets
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No objectionNothing in the published usage policies against it
- Example request
“A heist game with mechanics like [a named hit]”a game named as a reference
Claude Code (Anthropic)Allowed since v2.1.317Builds an original game in that genre, per Anthropic
Codex / policies (OpenAI)No game rule foundNo game-specific instruction in the Codex CLI code
- Example request
“Rebuild [a specific game], just rename it”a copy under a new name
Claude Code (Anthropic)Not allowedCovers its name, characters, art, music, levels or look; offers to build something similar
Codex / policies (OpenAI)General IP banUsage policies bar attempts to infringe IP; no game-specific rule found
Outside the tools: Take-Two says it relies on its own “technical defenses” and “legal activities”. Copyright and trademark law apply whichever tool writes the code.
The requests are our own illustrations. The rows summarize published rules, not tests of how the tools behave. ChatGPT’s and Codex Web’s server-side instructions are not public.
Sources: Claude Code program text, versions 2.1.317 to 2.1.325, and Anthropic’s statement of Nov 4, 2026 (via Tom’s Hardware); OpenAI usage policies, version effective Nov 20, 2026 (Internet Archive copy of Oct 28, 2026); Codex CLI repository on GitHub, checked Nov 14, 2026; Take-Two fiscal Q2 2027 earnings call, Nov 9, 2026.
Graphic: Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
AI Tools Face IP Policy Questions
The remarks address intellectual-property protections for companies that develop AI systems. Game publishers have an interest in whether tools can reproduce recognizable elements of their titles, but Zelnick’s comments did not establish that either company had enabled a specific infringement.
Zelnick said he did not view cloning as a financial threat to Take-Two’s business, while describing the issue as a creative concern. He also spoke about the importance of delivering the experience Rockstar intends. His remarks did not claim that AI cloning had reduced sales.
Broad rules against infringement do not necessarily specify how a coding assistant should respond to requests to reproduce a particular game. Anthropic’s instruction provides a game-specific example; the source report found no equivalent wording in the reviewed Codex CLI code. That finding does not establish how every OpenAI product handles such requests.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Headphones – Wireless Bluetooth Over-Ear Noise Cancelling Headphones, Petal Pink Limited Edition
Apple MacBook Air 15-inch Laptop with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, Liquid Retina Display, and Touch ID (Midnight)
Samsung Odyssey G55C 32-Inch QHD 1000R Curved Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Interview and Take-Two’s Response
Yin-Poole first asked whether AI-assisted cloning and possible unauthorized access to a PC version of Grand Theft Auto VI could threaten Take-Two. Zelnick said he did not see a financial threat to the business, but described the issue as a creative matter. He said the company protects its intellectual property and is not treating the concerns casually.
On Take-Two’s earnings call the same day, Zelnick said the company had historically been relatively protected from piracy because of game file sizes, technical complexity and server connections. He also said piracy would become “more of a challenge” and that Take-Two was “enhancing our technical defenses and enhancing our legal activities appropriately.” These comments describe the company’s stated response; they do not confirm a particular AI-assisted piracy incident.
The interview followed Anthropic’s addition of its game-recreation restriction. Its wording addresses recreating a specific existing game; it does not explicitly describe reverse engineering or decompiling. Those terms appeared in a separate analyst question on the earnings call, making it important not to treat the rule and the broader piracy discussion as identical.
“I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.”
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO, in an IGN interview published November 9, 2026
No Specific Clone Was Identified
Zelnick did not say whether “stomp on someone else’s IP” referred to material used to train AI models, user-created outputs, or another practice. He did not allege that Claude or ChatGPT had been used to clone a Take-Two game, and the interview does not establish that any such clone caused financial harm.
The source report said it had found no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s remarks as of 21:30 UTC on November 14. It is also unclear how the companies apply their general policies to particular game-cloning requests across all products, or how often those requests occur. Anthropic’s published instruction is specific to recreating a named or otherwise identifiable existing game; it should not be read as a blanket description of every form of reverse engineering.
Policy Responses and Piracy Defenses
Developments to watch include whether Anthropic or OpenAI responds publicly and whether either company changes or clarifies its guidance for requests involving existing games. Take-Two has said it is improving technical defenses and legal activity, but has not described a specific measure, timetable or enforcement action in the source material.
Further evidence would be needed to establish how AI-assisted cloning affects Take-Two’s games or business. The confirmed developments are the public exchange about intellectual-property principles, Anthropic’s published game-recreation restriction and Zelnick’s statement that piracy may become harder to manage.
Key Questions
What did Strauss Zelnick say about AI companies?
He said it seemed “ironic” for companies that work in intellectual property to infringe on others’ IP while expecting their own to be protected. He did not name a specific infringement or product.
Did Zelnick accuse Anthropic or OpenAI of cloning a Take-Two game?
No. He did not identify a cloned Take-Two game or claim that either company had caused one to be made. The interviewer named both companies while asking about their policies.
What restriction did Anthropic add to Claude Code?
The instruction tells Claude Code not to recreate a specific existing game using elements such as its characters, art, music, levels or overall look, even if the recreation is renamed or called original. The source says it appeared in version 2.1.317, published November 2, 2026.
Does Take-Two consider AI cloning a financial threat?
Zelnick said he did not see it as a financial threat to the business, but described it as a creative concern. Separately, he said piracy would become more challenging and that Take-Two was enhancing technical defenses and legal activity.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
