How Epic’s reported AI plan could change development of its delayed Disney game

The delay and the instruction to use more AI appear in the same account. But Bloomberg’s reporting does not establish that the AI plan caused the delay, or that Epic expects AI to bring the game back on schedule.

What does Bloomberg say changed?

Bloomberg reported that developers were told to move toward an AI-first production approach, with people guiding the work. Its sources said the instructions called for AI-generated code and art, and named Anthropic’s Claude as one tool developers could use.

The report says development had been slower than expected, citing people familiar with the project. It does not explain the reasons for the delay in detail, or say how the reported change in production plans relates to the schedule.

The available account leaves key details open: how much code or art the tools might produce, which tasks they would handle, and whether the game’s developers have begun using them. An instruction to adopt a workflow is not evidence that it has been put into practice.

What would the reported AI plan involve?

In this context, code generation means using an AI tool to produce programming code; art generation means using one to create visual material. If the reported direction is implemented, those outputs could become part of the game’s production process, with developers guiding the work.

The reported direction would put AI-generated code and art into the production process. But Bloomberg’s account does not describe how developers would review the output, incorporate it into the project, or decide whether it meets the game’s creative and technical requirements.

Nor does the report quantify the planned use or describe changes to team members’ responsibilities. It provides no project-specific assessment of the quality or reliability of AI-generated work, and no evidence that the approach would shorten development or improve the finished game.

What has Epic confirmed?

Epic Communications Director Jake Jones told Bloomberg that the company was embracing AI-assisted development and that Epic’s developers would lead the creative work. Jones said, in a statement reported by Engadget, “We're embracing AI-accelerated development, led by Epic developers who are the visionaries and creative drivers for everything we do”.

That statement confirms Epic’s broader position, not the project-specific instructions in Bloomberg’s account. Jones did not confirm which tools the Disney game’s team has used, or that AI-generated code or art is already part of the project.

Bloomberg’s project details rely on people familiar with the game; Engadget’s summary does not provide a separate investigation. Bloomberg also reported that some developers on the project were unsettled by the direction, while some hoped it might not be final or could be reversed. Those views were attributed to unnamed sources, not public comments from identified team members.

Bloomberg said Disney did not immediately respond to its request for comment. The reporting does not establish Disney’s position on the proposed production approach.

What could the shift mean for game development?

If Epic follows the reported direction, developers could guide material produced with AI tools as part of the game’s production process. That is a possible implication of the plan, not a confirmed description of how this team’s work has changed.

The report does not show that AI use would reduce costs, accelerate development, or improve the game. It also reports instructions calling for all project art to be generated through full AI workflows; that is not evidence the plan has been implemented.

For now, the report leaves the release date, the extent of any AI use, and the status of the reported instructions unresolved. Epic’s statement supports a wider interest in AI-assisted development, but whether the Disney game’s team has adopted the reported workflow—and how Epic would judge its results—remains unconfirmed.