Because they chose to say “content”. I think I have explained why that choice of a term is not wrong, so why would they use a different word if “content” works just fine?
Also, I would argue that “actions” and “content” mean different things, although the meaning can certainly overlap. Going back to the example of deploing a structure: Deploying a structure is undoubtedly an action, and it may create content. For example, if you try to prevent the deployment, grab a ship and kick some ass: That’s content, created through your actions and the actions of the guy with the structure. However, let’s say you fail to prevent the deployment, and the Structure goes online. That structure is not an action, it’s an asset. But it’s also content. If you then call your friends and form a fleet, that’s an action, as well as content for all players involved. The fleet itself however is not an action, but an asset. And it’s content.
So, I would say people just say “content” because they can’t be bothered to specify exactly what sort of content created by what means they are referring to. Maybe they don’t even know. They are just looking for content.
But if you setup a “Race Me TO Win ISK” event, and fly around a set course in circles, inviting other players to race you, then you are creating ‘content’ for those other players.
we’re calling it content because CCP’s been calling it content for over a decade. we’re calling it content because that’s what it is. when a suspect baiter warps into your mission trying to get your attention, then that’s effectively content for both of you as soon as he bites.
when a ganker pods ya on yer way to jita, then that’s content for the ganker and content for the victim, assuming he’s going to try to get back at him or at least puts a bounty on him.
when a guy in yer corp steals all your ■■■■, then that’s content too.
content = happenings which influence your gaming experience
anything else is just whatever people wanna make up around the fact.
I’ve been playing this game for 13 years and I don’t recall this term ever being applied by CCP to player actions. But if it is true that the description did originate with CCP, then that explains a lot. There is probably a much more apt term in Icelandic that didn’t translate well.
For a native English-speaker, calling in-game actions “content” is is just plain wrong, and fails on every possible level.
why? ya call in-game-happenings in every other game content too. when yer doing a quest, yer experiencing content. the only real difference is that yer experiencing content against entities steered by the computer, while in EYE yer experiencing content against entities steered by players.
That in-game action, is all the content there is in EVE.
For example:
You cant run a PvE anomaly, without engaging in in-game action.
When you do so, your in-game actions are the content, both for you and others.
A PvE anomaly, with nobody running it, is not content of any sort, in any practical sense. The mere fact it exists is not content of any substance. Think of all the respawning asteroid belts in EVE. If nobody ever runs them via in-game action, they might as well not exist as they provided no content to anyone.
Quite correct. When you are doing a quest, you are experiencing content. The content is the quest, which is composed of actual entities… dialog, enemies, environments. This was put there by the developers. What you DO is not content.
I have no problem with people saying that they are experiencing content. I have an issue with people saying they are “looking for content” or “trying to get content” (usually this means they are looking for a fight).
In contrast to some of the explanations offered forth earlier, no one ever says they are going to “create some content”.
