Epic Games is reportedly turning to AI-generated code and artwork to help finish a delayed Disney shooter.
The Unreal Engine creator has delayed an upcoming shooter featuring Marvel and Star Wars characters as it pushes developers to adopt an artificial intelligence-first approach to production, according to Bloomberg.
The report said the unannounced game targeted March 2027, but no revised release date has been communicated. Development has progressed more slowly than expected, partly because Epic underestimated the staffing and time required.
For software development leaders, the project raises a practical question: whether faster code generation reduces total delivery time once human review, testing and rework are included.
In an internal message reviewed by the publication, a director told the development team there would be “No more hand-written code” and that the game’s artwork would be “generated with full AI workflows.” Developers were instructed to use tools such as Anthropic’s Claude, with human staff overseeing the results.
Epic confirmed its wider AI push. “We’re embracing AI-accelerated development, led by Epic developers who are the visionaries and creative drivers for everything we do,” Jake Jones, the company’s communications director, told Bloomberg.
Epic expands its AI ambitions
CEO Tim Sweeney also confirmed the company’s strategic shift in a post on X, saying Epic was moving developers around to accelerate AI adoption.
“The aim isn’t to do the same stuff with fewer people, but to enable everyone here to build MORE and BETTER stuff, and to bring the benefits to all teams using Unreal,” Sweeney wrote.
Epic announced more than 1,000 layoffs in March, citing declining Fortnite engagement and spending that exceeded revenue. Sweeney said at the time that the cuts were unrelated to AI. Disney invested $1.5 billion in Epic in 2024, with the companies agreeing to develop games and experiences built around Disney properties.
The project could become an important test of whether generative AI can support the production of a major commercial game rather than serve mainly as an assistant for research, brainstorming and prototyping.
Can AI deliver a finished game?
The immediate question is whether Epic can use AI to accelerate a project that is already behind schedule. Generating code and artwork faster does not necessarily mean a game can be completed faster: developers must still test systems, fix errors, maintain consistency and ensure that different components work together.
Bloomberg reported that some employees questioned the new approach during an internal video call, including how they would handle mistakes in AI-generated work. Their concerns point to a practical problem: if AI produces more material but also introduces defects, the time saved during production could be lost during debugging and quality assurance.
The shift also raises questions about creative control. A game featuring recognizable Marvel and Star Wars characters needs to meet expectations for visual consistency, storytelling and gameplay. AI-assisted production could help teams experiment more quickly, but speed alone will not guarantee a compelling result.
More must-read AI coverage
- SS&C Intralinks DealCentre AI vs. Datasite: Which platform is built for the future of dealmaking?
- SS&C Intralinks FundCentre AI vs. Juniper Square: Which platform better supports modern private markets fund managers?
- Why Data, Not Models, Determines AI Success
- The Rise of the AI-Native Factory: How Physical AI Is Transforming Manufacturing
Epic faces a quality test
The wider industry implications extend beyond one Disney game. If Epic demonstrates that AI can reliably support a large production, other studios could face pressure to adopt similar workflows. If the project struggles with quality or development delays, it could reinforce concerns about relying too heavily on generative tools.
GDC’s 2026 State of the Game Industry summary, based on responses from more than 2,300 industry professionals, found that 36% used generative AI at work. Among AI users, 81% used it for research or brainstorming, compared with 47% for code assistance and 35% for prototyping.
What software teams should watch
For development managers, Epic’s shift highlights the difference between generating work quickly and delivering a reliable product. Teams evaluating similar workflows should measure time spent reviewing, integrating and testing AI-generated output alongside time saved creating it.
Cost comparisons should include AI subscriptions, usage charges and the staff time required to correct or maintain generated code. Tracking total delivery time, defects and rework can help establish whether the tools improve productivity or move effort into later stages.
Responsibility also needs to remain clear. Developers must know who approves generated changes, investigates failures and maintains the resulting systems. Until Epic provides evidence about delivery time, costs and quality, software teams should treat its approach as an experiment rather than a proven productivity model.
Read more: Google’s Playground takes a different approach to AI-assisted game creation, turning text prompts into playable games without coding.