🔍 Read the full analysis: Why Take-Two’s CEO Calls AI Game Cloning ‘Ironic’ on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI companies should protect others’ intellectual property. His remarks came in an IGN interview about Anthropic’s new Claude Code rule against recreating specific existing games. Zelnick did not identify a particular AI product, cloned game or alleged infringement, and said piracy was a creative concern rather than a financial threat to Take-Two.
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick said AI companies should protect others’ intellectual property. In an interview published by IGN on November 9, he was responding to a question about Anthropic’s new rule against using its Claude Code tool to recreate specific existing games. Zelnick said game cloning was a creative concern, not a financial threat to Take-Two, and did not identify a particular company product or infringement case.
The exchange followed a question about reports that hackers were using AI to clone games more quickly and whether an unofficial version of Grand Theft Auto VI for PC would threaten Take-Two. Zelnick told IGN: “I don’t think it’s a financial matter, in terms of a threat to our business. I do think it’s a creative matter.” He added that the company was focused on protecting its intellectual property and was “not in the least cavalier” about the concerns.
Asked whether he welcomed Anthropic’s new restriction and wanted OpenAI to take a similar step, Zelnick said: “I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.” He then said Anthropic and OpenAI were in the intellectual-property business and that it seemed “ironic” to “stomp on someone else’s IP and hope that yours is protected.” The interviewer introduced both company names; Zelnick did not describe a specific act by either one.
Anthropic’s Claude Code instruction, included in version 2.1.317 published November 2, tells the model not to create “a recreation of a specific existing game,” including one using its name, characters, art, music, levels or look, even if renamed or presented as original. Anthropic grounds the restriction in its usage policy against infringing third-party intellectual property. OpenAI’s usage policies also prohibit attempts to infringe others’ intellectual-property rights, but the source material reports no equivalent game-specific instruction in the open-source Codex CLI code.
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 Rules Meet Game IP
Zelnick’s comments address how AI companies’ intellectual-property interests intersect with concerns about reproducing protected creative work. For game publishers, potential concerns can include the use of a game’s characters, art, music or levels, whether or not a recreation replaces a paid copy.
Zelnick said he viewed game cloning as a creative concern rather than a financial threat to Take-Two. He did not say AI cloning had reduced the company’s revenue or that a named model had generated an unauthorized Take-Two game. Separately, Take-Two has said it is preparing for piracy risks to grow.
Anthropic’s stated rule expressly addresses recreations of existing games. The OpenAI policy language cited here prohibits infringement but does not include a game-specific instruction identified in the source material. The material does not establish how either policy is applied in practice or how requests near the policies’ boundaries are handled.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 32GX870A-B 32-inch 4K UHD OLED Gaming Monitor
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Samsung Odyssey G7 G75F 40-Inch WUHD Curved Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Interview and New Rule
IGN managing editor Wesley Yin-Poole interviewed Zelnick by phone. The interview appeared on November 9, the same evening Take-Two reported results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2026. Its questions connected two issues: AI-assisted game cloning and Anthropic’s newly added Claude Code restriction.
The rule was published in Claude Code version 2.1.317 on November 2. Its language focuses on recreating a specific game and its recognizable elements. That is narrower than a general claim that the tool blocks reverse engineering or decompilation: the rule described in the source material does not itself mention either activity.
On Take-Two’s earnings call, an analyst asked about AI-assisted reverse engineering and decompilation. Zelnick said piracy had historically been limited by game file sizes, the complexity of piracy and server connections, but added that it was going to become “more of a challenge.” He said Take-Two was “enhancing our technical defenses and enhancing our legal activities appropriately.”
““I think all companies should be protecting intellectual property, their own and everyone else’s.””
— Strauss Zelnick, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO, speaking to IGN
What Zelnick Did Not Specify
Zelnick did not explain what conduct he meant by “stomp on someone else’s IP.” His comment could refer to how AI models are developed, what users generate with them, or another concern; the interview does not resolve that ambiguity. He did not claim that Claude, ChatGPT or another named system had cloned a Take-Two game.
The source material reports no public response from Anthropic or OpenAI to Zelnick’s remarks as of 21:30 UTC on November 14. It also does not establish how often users attempt to recreate games, whether Anthropic’s instruction prevents such outputs in practice, or what legal consequences would follow in a particular case. The distinction between game recreation and reverse engineering remains relevant: the published Anthropic rule described here addresses the former, not explicitly the latter.
Company Defenses and Policy
Take-Two says it is strengthening technical defenses and pursuing legal activity as it prepares for piracy to pose a greater challenge. The source material gives no timetable, specific measures or details about any enforcement action. It also does not report a change to Take-Two’s release plans for Grand Theft Auto VI.
Possible developments include public responses from Anthropic or OpenAI, changes or clarification to their rules for game-related requests, and further information from Take-Two about piracy incidents or protective measures. Zelnick’s remarks addressed the relationship between AI companies’ intellectual-property interests and the protection of others’ rights; he did not disclose a case against a specific tool.
Key Questions
What did Zelnick call ironic?
He said it was “ironic” for companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI to be in the intellectual-property business while, in his words, “stomp on someone else’s IP” and expect their own rights to be protected.
Did Zelnick accuse a specific AI tool of cloning a Take-Two game?
No. He did not name a product, identify a cloned Take-Two game or describe a specific infringement. The companies were named in the interviewer’s question.
What does Anthropic’s Claude Code rule prohibit?
The rule described in the source material tells Claude Code not to recreate a specific existing game or its named characters, art, music, levels or look, even if the recreation is renamed or called original.
Does Zelnick say AI game cloning threatens Take-Two’s finances?
No. He said he did not see it as a financial threat to the business, but called it a creative concern. He separately said piracy was likely to become more challenging.
Have Anthropic or OpenAI responded to his comments?
The source material reports no public response from either company as of 21:30 UTC on November 14, 2026.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
