Four words stopped me mid-scroll on Monday: "no more hand-written code." According to Bloomberg's Jason Schreier, a director on Epic Games' unannounced Star Wars and Marvel shooter sent that line to the team in an internal message, and the same director said all of the game's art would be "generated with full AI workflows."
I've read plenty of AI-in-games stories this year, and most are about one tool in one corner of a project. This one asks a bigger question: what happens when a major studio tries to build a licensed blockbuster with AI at the center? Below you'll find what's actually confirmed, a plain-English decoder for the jargon, the fairest case for Epic and against it, and a five-question test I built to score the pivot. My take: the bet on AI isn't what worries me. The order of operations is.
At a Glance
- On October 12, Bloomberg reported that Epic delayed an unannounced Marvel and Star Wars shooter from a March 2027 target, with no new date, and told the team to adopt an "AI first" model using tools that include Anthropic's Claude.
- A director reportedly told staff there would be "no more hand-written code," and that art would be generated with full AI workflows. Staff were reportedly shocked and asked how mistakes would be caught.
- Epic's statement backs "AI-accelerated development," and CEO Tim Sweeney posted about a "huge pivot" toward "maximum AI acceleration," saying the aim isn't to do the same work with fewer people.
- Disney invested $1.5 billion in Epic in 2024. Epic laid off more than 1,000 people on March 24, 2026, and said the cuts weren't related to AI.
- My take: AI tools aren't the problem. A no-exceptions rule, on a licensed game that was already behind, is a risky way to prove them. My five-question test finds one clear no, one mixed result and three open questions.
What Bloomberg actually reported
Here's the solid part. Bloomberg's Jason Schreier reported on October 12 that Epic Games has delayed a shooter it's making with Disney, featuring characters from both Marvel and Star Wars. The game was never announced, so there's no title, no trailer and no public date. Per the reporting, it was aimed at March 2027 internally and now has no replacement target.
The second half is what lit up the internet. Developers on the project were told to move to an "AI first" production model, using tools that include Anthropic's Claude, with staff overseeing the output. Bloomberg, as other outlets describe it, called the effort the first attempt by a major game company to build a game with AI as its primary foundation.
As for the delay itself, the reporting says progress was slower than expected and Epic underestimated how many people and how much time the game needed. Developers learned about the AI mandate in early October, and many reportedly reacted with confusion and shock. Kotaku adds a detail I keep coming back to: it's unclear what guardrails exist for catching mistakes made by AI and keeping sloppy work out of the final product.
A caveat worth saying out loud: Bloomberg's report rests on anonymous sources and an internal message, and it sits behind a paywall, so I'm relying on how other outlets described it. Some coverage calls the game an extraction shooter, based on earlier reports. I'm not leaning on that detail, because Epic hasn't confirmed any genre.
Who said what, and what I make of it
Stories like this get blurry fast, so I separated the voices. Each card shows what a party said and what I read into it.
The delay from March 2027, the AI-first model, the director's no-hand-written-code message and the AI-generated art plan, all drawn from anonymous sources and an internal message.
My read: Schreier is a veteran games reporter, so I take it seriously. But it's reporting, not an Epic announcement, and the difference matters.
Epic says it's embracing "AI-accelerated development," led by its own developers, whom it calls the creative drivers behind everything it makes.
My read: Look at what it confirms (a direction) and what it skips (the delay, a date, the tools, Disney).
Sweeney described a "huge pivot" underway, moving developers around to retool for "maximum AI acceleration." He said the aim isn't to do the same work with fewer people, but to let everyone build more and better things, and to bring the benefits to every team using Unreal.
My read: The strongest confirmation we have, and it reads as company-wide. In the quotes I saw, he didn't name the Disney game.
Reports say Disney didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg's request for comment. I found no later statement.
My read: The most important silence in the story. These are Disney's characters, and Disney is also an Epic investor.
Reports describe confusion and shock, and questions about how errors in AI-generated work would be handled.
My read: The voice I'd weigh most. They're the ones who have to make it work.
Decoder: what "AI first" really means
The phrase is slippery, so here's my shorthand. These are my working definitions, not an industry standard, and they show why the reported Epic plan stands out.
Bloomberg calls the Epic approach the first of its kind at a major company, which tells you it sits far past the first bucket. The "no exceptions" wording is what made people stop scrolling, and Epic hasn't published the rule itself.
How Epic got here
This didn't come out of nowhere. Here are the moments that frame it, from reporting I could trace.
It's 202 days from the layoff memo to Bloomberg's report. I'm not claiming the two are connected, and Epic said they aren't. But a gap that short makes people ask questions, and the questions are fair.
The best case for Epic, and against
I try to argue each side the way its defenders would, because a take means more when it survives the other team's best points.
- Epic makes Unreal Engine, so lessons learned in its own studio can reach every team that uses it. Sweeney says that's part of the point.
- The game was reportedly behind. A big swing is at least a coherent answer to a hard problem.
- Epic says its developers lead the work and staff oversee the output, and Sweeney says the goal isn't fewer people.
- Sweeney's own layoff memo cast Epic as a company that survived the jump from 2D to 3D, to consoles and to online games. Tool shifts are familiar territory.
- An absolute rule ignores that good tools get used where they help and skipped where they don't.
- These are Marvel and Star Wars characters, brands Disney guards closely, and AI-made art on them is a big ask.
- Staff were reportedly caught off guard, and nobody has said publicly how mistakes get caught.
- The timing follows a roughly 20% layoff, and Epic's earlier AI experiment with a Star Wars icon needed a patch after it was caught swearing.
Honestly, I find both columns persuasive, which tells me the argument isn't really about whether AI belongs in games. It's about how you introduce it, to whom, and on what.
My five-question test
For a mandate like this to work, I think five things have to be true. Here's my rubric, scored only on what's public today. It's my opinion, and you're welcome to grade it differently.
Staff reportedly asked how errors in AI output would be caught, and Kotaku notes the guardrails are unclear. I found no public answer. A rule with no visible review process is a hope, not a pipeline.
Disney is both investor and owner of the characters. It didn't immediately comment, per reports, and I found no public view on AI-generated art for Marvel or Star Wars.
The game has already lost its March 2027 target, with no new date. Retooling a team's way of working mid-project is work too, and it landed on a team reportedly already short on people.
Kotaku calls the backlash to generative AI loud. But HotHardware notes that ARC Raiders and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 both carried Steam AI disclosures and still did well. Players seem to judge the result more than the recipe.
Sweeney says the aim isn't the same work with fewer people. Epic says March's layoffs weren't about AI. The team, by reports, was shocked. Trust gets settled by what happens next, not by statements.
The scoring is mine, not Epic's, Disney's or Bloomberg's. "Still open" means I couldn't find a public answer, not that no answer exists.
That scoreboard isn't a verdict on the idea. It measures how much of the idea has been shown, and right now it's very little.
If you're a player: what to do with this
You can't buy this game, so the practical question is how to hold the news in your head. Here's how I'd do it.
- There's nothing to buy yet.No name, no date, no trailer. Epic hasn't said when the game will be shown.
- Use the store page when one exists.Steam pages carry an AI-generated content disclosure where developers describe how they used it. Sweeney thinks that's irresponsible. I think it's useful, because it lets you decide with facts.
- Judge the finished game.Reviews and footage will tell you more than any production memo. A game can be made one way and still be good, or the reverse.
- Be kind to the people on the team.Mandates come from the top. The artists and engineers on that video call didn't write the memo.
What nobody outside Epic can tell you
- How much of the game ends up AI-made."AI first" is a production model, not a percentage, and nobody has published one.
- Whether the rule reaches beyond this team.Sweeney's post reads company-wide, but the quotes I saw don't name the Disney game.
- What the new date is.Bloomberg reports there isn't one.
- What Disney thinks.No public statement that I could find.
- Which tools do what.Reports name Claude among them, with no full list.
- How errors get caught.The question staff reportedly asked is still unanswered in public.
I don't think the bet on AI tools is the problem, and I'm curious about the version where a tool takes the grind out so a team can make something bigger. Sweeney says that's the aim, and I'd be glad if it's true. But a no-exceptions rule, dropped on a team that was already behind, on a game built from Marvel and Star Wars, 202 days after a roughly 20% layoff, is about the hardest place to prove it. If it works, the industry learns something real. If it doesn't, the cost lands on the people on that team. I'd rather see the idea earn trust somewhere smaller first, though Epic knows its own project far better than I do.
Quick answers
What did Epic Games tell the developers of its Star Wars and Marvel shooter?
According to Bloomberg, the team was told to move to an "AI first" production model using tools that include Anthropic's Claude. One of the game's directors reportedly wrote that there would be "no more hand-written code" and that all art would be generated with full AI workflows. Staff were reportedly caught off guard.
Is Epic's Star Wars and Marvel shooter delayed, and is there a new date?
Bloomberg reports the game slipped from a March 2027 target and has no replacement date. The game has never been announced, so it has no public title, trailer or release window. In the coverage I read, Epic has not said when it will be shown.
Is the game being made entirely by AI?
Not as far as anyone outside Epic can say. Reports describe an "AI first" model with humans overseeing the output, and Epic's statement says its developers lead the work. Bloomberg describes it as the first attempt by a major game company to build a game mainly on AI, but nobody has published a breakdown of how much of the game that covers.
Which AI tool is Epic using?
Reports name Anthropic's Claude among the tools. Epic hasn't published a full list in anything I found, so I can't tell you which tools handle code, which handle art, or how they're connected.
Did Epic confirm the Bloomberg report?
Partly. Epic's communications director said the company is embracing AI-accelerated development led by its own developers, and CEO Tim Sweeney posted on X about a huge pivot toward maximum AI acceleration. In the coverage I read, neither addressed the delay, the game's details or the director's message directly.
Does Disney approve of AI-generated art for Marvel and Star Wars characters?
Nobody outside Disney and Epic knows. Reports say Disney didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg's request for comment, and I found no public Disney statement on the subject. Disney invested $1.5 billion in Epic in 2024 as part of a multi-game collaboration.
Were Epic's 2026 layoffs caused by AI?
Epic said no. When it announced more than 1,000 layoffs on March 24, the company said the cuts weren't related to AI and pointed to a downturn in Fortnite engagement that began in 2025 plus industry-wide pressure. About 4,000 employees remained afterward.
How can I tell if a game was made with AI?
On Steam, store pages carry an AI-generated content disclosure where developers describe how they used it. Sweeney has criticized that policy, but it's the clearest label players currently have. This particular game has no store page yet, so there's nothing to check.
