Epic Games has directed developers on an unannounced Disney game to lean on AI tools to finish the project, according to a Bloomberg report summarized by The Verge. The game, described as a shooter featuring Marvel and Star Wars characters, has slipped from its original March release window, and the studio has reportedly given the team an "AI-first" mandate.
The most concrete detail in the account is a message one of the game's directors is said to have sent to staff: "No more hand-written code." Staff were also told, per the report, that all of the game's art would be "generated with full AI workflows." The Verge frames the tools in question as including Anthropic's Claude, which developers were told to use more of.
Epic did not dispute the thrust of the report. Spokesperson Jake Jones told Bloomberg that the company is "embracing AI-accelerated development," a statement that confirms the direction without confirming the specific directives attributed to the project's leadership. Neither Epic Games nor Disney responded immediately to The Verge's request for comment, so the internal messages remain reported rather than independently verified.
A multiyear collaboration between Epic and Disney provides the setting for this project. As part of that arrangement, Disney put $1.5 billion into Epic during 2024, and the game falls under the same deal. According to The Verge, Fortnite — which has previously included Disney characters, among them an AI Darth Vader — is already a place where Epic deploys AI. The outlet frames the new project as potentially going much further, with AI handling what it describes as most of the heavy lifting.
Epic is not operating in isolation on this front. The Verge points to AI game development tools emerging from other large companies, naming Meta and Google. That context matters for how the mandate should be read: it is a notable escalation in an established industry pattern rather than an isolated experiment by one studio.
At Epic, the leadership stance has matched the mandate as reported. Tim Sweeney, the CEO, has argued that Steam should remove its "made with AI" tag, on the grounds that nearly all future production will involve AI. That stance amounts to a public declaration of intent regarding disclosure norms, and it dovetails with a studio instructing its own developers to adopt AI tooling by default.
The report lands against a difficult backdrop at the company. Earlier this year, Epic laid off more than 1,000 employees, following what the source describes as a downturn in Fortnite engagement since 2025. The Verge does not draw a causal link between the layoffs and the AI mandate, and neither should readers: the two facts are reported in the same piece, but the evidence supplied does not establish that one produced the other.
For freelancers and contractors who work with large studios, the practical signal is about where labor is being directed rather than whether AI exists in pipelines. A mandate that code should not be hand-written and that art should come from full AI workflows implies fewer conventional hand-authoring tasks on this project and more work in prompt design, tool operation, review, integration and cleanup. The evidence does not specify which roles, if any, are being cut or added.
That distinction is important because the reported instructions are about production method, not headcount. Nothing in the supplied material says Epic is replacing named contractors, changing rates, or altering outsourcing terms on this title. Anyone reading the report as a direct statement about freelance budgets would be going beyond what the sources support.
There is also a disclosure dimension worth watching. Sweeney's push against Steam's "made with AI" tag suggests Epic would prefer AI involvement to be treated as unremarkable rather than flagged. If that position prevails, buyers and players may have less standardized information about how a given title was produced, which affects how contractors and studios describe their own contributions.
The report leaves several things unresolved. The game is unannounced, so there is no public title, no confirmed release date beyond the reported slip from March, and no detail on how much of the final code or art will actually come from AI versus human revision. The Verge's account rests on Bloomberg's reporting of internal messages, and the only on-record element is Epic's general statement about AI-accelerated development.
It is also unclear how the mandate is being enforced or measured. The supplied evidence does not describe targets, review processes, quality gates, or consequences for developers who continue writing code by hand. Without that, the practical effect on day-to-day work on the project cannot be assessed from the available material.
For this audience, the reasonable takeaway is to treat the report as a directional signal about tooling expectations at a major studio, not as a settled account of how the game is being built. Freelancers and small studios pitching into similar pipelines may find it useful to be explicit about which parts of their work are AI-assisted and which are not, since client expectations in this area are clearly shifting.
The larger question the report raises is whether "AI-first" becomes a default posture across large-scale game production or remains a contested experiment. Epic's public positioning, its existing AI use in Fortnite, and the reported internal mandate all point in the same direction, but the outcome for quality, timelines and the freelance labor market around AAA titles is not something the current evidence can settle.