I was thinking more specifically about activities people do where "content creators" can be found.

So you don't consider ganking afk miners to be content?

Guess it depends on whether you consider the relationship between ganked and ganker to be symptomatic of some bigger issue - like say for example that mining is too easy in highsec or that maybe asteroid belts should be swapped for mining sigs?

Actually, we do both. That's the whole point of the concept.
They have created some minute content that we can interact with. They have also created a large box of tools. We can use those tools to create our own content. Other players then interact with the content we create.

If you think that only the stuff created by CCP counts as content, you have a very narrow GÇö to the point of entirely inaccurate GÇö view of what content actually is. The funny part is that you got it reasonably right at first: content is GÇ£stuff to do.GÇ¥ Contrary to your belief, CCP are not the only ones who can create that. Hell, a lot of the EVE content does not even exist within EVE the game.

So, content in EVE is every form of interaction between humans.

Player interaction IS the content this game is all about.

Maybe you too need to get "life" first and realize that as soon
as you interact with someone, "life" provides you content.

Nowadays it's much more complicated though. People consider watching TV
as content. It's consumption. That's the root of the issue, btw.

People in our oversaturated societies are used to consume content so much,
they forgot that "interaction" is the actual content that makes things happen.

Meh. If that answer isn't valid, then neither is their complaint. Whether they engage in it or not, wilfully ignoring the content being created isGǪ wellGǪ ignorant, and gets the kind of answer it deserves.

You mean to tell me that in a game with thousands of ships and items, you've done 'everything'. I highly doubt that.

PvP is non developer created content.

And interaction is content, no matter how hard you try not to understand this.

Please provide practical evidence that interaction is not content.
I can provide tons of evidence that it is, while you are completely
unable to prove the contrary.

All you need to do is come to Hek when I am around.

content 2 |-êk+Ænt+¢nt|

noun (also contents)
the things that are held or included in something: she unscrewed the top of the flask and drank the contents.

GÇó [ in sing. ] [ with modifier ] the amount of a particular constituent occurring in a substance: soya milk has a low fat content.
GÇó (contents) a list of the chapters or sections given at the front of a book or periodical: [ as modifier ] : the contents page.
GÇó [ mass noun ] the material dealt with in a speech, literary work, etc. as distinct from its form or style: the tone, if not the content, of his book is familiar.
GÇó information made available by a website or other electronic medium: [ as modifier ] : online content providers.

Nothing there about interactions being disqualified form being content. If interactions are included in something, why would they not count as content in that something? In fact, usage 3 seems rather applicable here: the content of a game is distinct from its mechanisms and presentation.

It is. You just don't get it. Too stuck in your narrow understanding of Life in general.
You probably believe your existence has no influence on others too, hu?

when people say "ccp should add new content" what do you think they mean?

I wouldn't describe the activities made possible by the tools given to you in a sandbox as content. That's like saying a box of Lego has content. It has possibilities, not content. Content is created when players realise those possibilities. I guess you have to make the distinction between developer-created and player-created content.

GǪwhich doesn't in any way preclude interaction from being content.

There is already a word for banana, and guess what it is? Banana, not berryGǪ or fruit. And yet, bananas are berries (and occasionally fruits).

And that is not what anyone is doing either, so that was a particularly silly argument (especially since bananas aren't fruits).
The fact remains: interaction can be content. There is no opposition between the two terms. One is simply a subset of the other, same as how a banana is a berry.

Yes. Pretty much everything in it, especially the many forms of interaction it provides. I also know that some people mistakenly only have the themepark viewpoint of content as something to consume, but that doesn't mean that that is the only type of content a sandbox has to offer.

So you agree then since you have no counter-argument and have to go for the laughably pathetic passive-aggressive insults.

Not GÇ£peopleGÇ¥, no. You are. That's why I'm correcting your very ignorant and misinformed view.

All of us believe that. Some of us just think that it is very unfortunate that these people haven't quite grasped what counts as content in a sandbox game.

You're welcome.

Content in this case is whats included in the body of work. EvE is a body of work, therefor any interaction inside said body of work that generates substance, or more stories is content. Technically billy bob shooting sue in the face and moving on is more interaction, but goonswarm crushing all of eve and forming the big blue doughnut is content. As it creates a history and a story. Its part of the game, the back story, and the future. I win

When players say "ccp should make more content" they are not seeing eve for what it is. They want more rides.

GǪand as demonstrated, they're not. Just because your argument didn't doesn't mean you have to get all huffy and abusive. You were just wrong (especially in what you said on page one). It happens. Live with it.