Stress Level Zero Previews 'Hover Junkers' Co-Operative VR Gameplay

[BrutalAttis]

... yea not for me, I pre-ordered the Rift. I want to sit and vegetate when I game, if I wanted to a workout I'll go to a gym or outside. I sure hope all this movement crap can be turned off. I only care for head movement, even then 1:1 is probably not something I'll ... to much movement. But who knows, maybe 1:1 wont be that bad. Current head track software I use in space-flight syms allow for adjusting the head movement ration, hope VR will be the same.

head tracking software for a monitor makes sense, so you can keep your view of the screen while moving your head, but you still see the room around you that keeps your grounded.

In VR you won't want do have it track your head slower or faster than you are actually moving. that will make you sick. You don't have the view of other objects in the room keeping you balanced. VR plays with your vesitbular system, which controls your balance. It is also the same part of your body that reacts to poison, which is why you vomit from motion sickness.

Also for the Vive, the headset is tracked by using the lighthouse boxes, which also does the full room tracking. It's just how the system works.
Oculus will definitely have far more seated demos, but when Touch comes out those experiences will likely be more catered to standing positions.

No arguments from me regarding non-1:1 ratios and getting sick - I figured as much. That and input lag I worry about most regarding getting sick over longer periods of play. I have all the right hardware, but will only know once I get my new toy how I personally do. But I will still prefer sitting on my butt enjoying VR (saying playing a space flight sim like Elite Dangerous etc.) Standing up or ducking my head around or moving around a room, hell no thanks ... maybe the younger crowd will like that ... I think like Wii it will get old fast.

Looking around from a cockpit would been cool as hell, I am very excited about those types of applications for VR!

1st person shooters? Not sure ... maybe if the character is in 3rd person it will help with the disorientation, or puking.

But my point is that for me personal VR experience I would prefer sitting on my butt vegetating ... not moving/jumping around etc.

OK, for gaming, I can see not wanting to be that active.
But what about shopping for a new home? Consider moving to a new city, and being able to preview possible homes and walk around, room to room, and see for yourself what its like to be there.
Or have a digital scan of your room and preview what it would look like with different furniture or decorations before purchasing them.

There are many different possibilities with VR when you can walk around within the space.
You'll see once you get it. Your imagination will go wild once you've tried it out.

Seated experiences will definitely be plentiful, so don't worry. Vive is about having everything you'll need for any kind of VR, whereas Rift will be limited to certain types of experiences, at least in the short term.

BTW, EVE:Valkyrie sounds like your type of game, and its more certainly a seated experience. It comes with your preorder so you'll know soon enough.

 

[BrutalAttis]

... yea not for me, I pre-ordered the Rift. I want to sit and vegetate when I game, if I wanted to a workout I'll go to a gym or outside. I sure hope all this movement crap can be turned off. I only care for head movement, even then 1:1 is probably not something I'll ... to much movement. But who knows, maybe 1:1 wont be that bad. Current head track software I use in space-flight syms allow for adjusting the head movement ration, hope VR will be the same.

head tracking software for a monitor makes sense, so you can keep your view of the screen while moving your head, but you still see the room around you that keeps your grounded.

In VR you won't want do have it track your head slower or faster than you are actually moving. that will make you sick. You don't have the view of other objects in the room keeping you balanced. VR plays with your vesitbular system, which controls your balance. It is also the same part of your body that reacts to poison, which is why you vomit from motion sickness.

Also for the Vive, the headset is tracked by using the lighthouse boxes, which also does the full room tracking. It's just how the system works.
Oculus will definitely have far more seated demos, but when Touch comes out those experiences will likely be more catered to standing positions.

No arguments from me regarding non-1:1 ratios and getting sick - I figured as much. That and input lag I worry about most regarding getting sick over longer periods of play. I have all the right hardware, but will only know once I get my new toy how I personally do. But I will still prefer sitting on my butt enjoying VR (saying playing a space flight sim like Elite Dangerous etc.) Standing up or ducking my head around or moving around a room, hell no thanks ... maybe the younger crowd will like that ... I think like Wii it will get old fast.

Looking around from a cockpit would been cool as hell, I am very excited about those types of applications for VR!

1st person shooters? Not sure ... maybe if the character is in 3rd person it will help with the disorientation, or puking.

But my point is that for me personal VR experience I would prefer sitting on my butt vegetating ... not moving/jumping around etc.

OK, for gaming, I can see not wanting to be that active.
But what about shopping for a new home? Consider moving to a new city, and being able to preview possible homes and walk around, room to room, and see for yourself what its like to be there.
Or have a digital scan of your room and preview what it would look like with different furniture or decorations before purchasing them.

There are many different possibilities with VR when you can walk around within the space.
You'll see once you get it. Your imagination will go wild once you've tried it out.

Seated experiences will definitely be plentiful, so don't worry. Vive is about having everything you'll need for any kind of VR, whereas Rift will be limited to certain types of experiences, at least in the short term.

BTW, EVE:Valkyrie sounds like your type of game, and its more certainly a seated experience. It comes with your preorder so you'll know soon enough.

Okay you are quite correct, I look at VR more from a gaming perspective

The only issue with the type of application you describe for VR is that the room that you are in wont we 1:1 to the VR room/environment your are exploring. I really dont think walking around will ever be mainstream and even hand movement capture they will keep struggling with. But I think there is more reason for VR to be able to capture your hand movements (taping in the air, grabbing stuff) than walking around.

I think VR underestimate how lazy people are. Keeping your hands in the air, or walking around takes allot of effort. Hold your hands and arms in front of you for 5 min ... see how feel about that. People don't like doing that for any extended duration of time. Moving my mouse a couple cm / a joystick is allot less effort than physically moving my hands around to stuff.

Unless we talking Matrix level integration (still sitting on my butt & chilling) I think walking & extended hand movement capture very gimmicky.

This was my main reason to go for the Rift, they seem to be focused most on what I personally would want from VR - a seat gaming VR experience. All their resources went into that direction, I fully approve.

But all round VR is an exciting new development ... I can't wait to see what companies come up with. Personally I am just happy to be around to see it actually happening in my lifetime.

 

[Dan414]

Glad to see I'm not entirely alone. I'm very very excited about the development around VR, and I believe eventually everyone will have a headset (or multiple) around the house, similar to TV's. Perhaps in place of TV's. Developers will experiment with a lot of different ways to have an experience in VR, but I predict that the most popular experiences will NOT require constant attention to your head position, or using gestures, and will require minimal physical effort.

Consider watching a movie, VR vs TV. On a TV, I am free to move around my seat, adjust my position, lay my head down, lean forward/back, etc. Even the most comfortable position can become painful if you are static. For a headset to compete with the TV, it needs to NOT require me to keep my head at one angle or prevent me from turning around. I'm sure developers will find ways to do that (perhaps a hardware button that gently "centers" the screen any time I press it?) but that is what VR will compete against.

There will be some fantastic new ways to experience content that only VR can do. Like the game/movie where the little girl is lost, I forget the name. But I think those experiences are unlikely to compete on the same scale as the classic "watching a movie" experience.

 

[kcarbotte]

I'm going to address this one paragraph at a time.

Okay first things first, 3-D TVs failed because the people who made the movies decide to make a bunch of really really crappy 3-D conversions. Go to a movie that was shot in 3-D and then look at a conversion and understand the difference of what they are. One of them is a fantastic experience which is hard even replicate and one of them is I'm looking at flat pictures and one of them seems to be behind the other.

That is one reason 3D TV's failed, but really, 3D is just an added gimmick to a medium that has been around for decades. It wasn't anything radically different. It didn't offer a dramatically different experience that people felt compelled to buy into. Everyone's seen a 3D movie by now. It's a cool treat, but very few cared enough to buy TVs for home use.
And a 3D movie made for 3D, even the animated ones, offered only fleeting glimpses of immersion.

Second room scale VR is going to fail horribly. VR itself in the beginning is going to be niche but the people who are willing to get up and move around are even more niche. Don't get me wrong, when wereable vr can be used wirelessly there may be a use and room scale, but I want to say right now outside of Microsoft glasses thing that puts the monitor in front of your eyes, there is never going to be a box that is on your head that you walk around with that's going to sell mass amounts. The first person who dies because they fell or even just gets broken bones because they fell through the products intended use... no one will develop it further than that.

We'll just have to wait and see, but I completely disagree with you. HTC has shown the Vive to tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, and there has never been a reported accidnt. There are thousands of developers with Vive kits, and no one is reporting concernds like that.
Most of the games beiing made for room scale won't have you walking around everywhere, and you aren't going to be made to spin around in circles.
Developers are smart enough to account for these things, also, as I keep saying, the chaperone system is designed to account for that. The camera sees objects and obstructions in front of you and warns you by bringing a silhouette of them into view in the headset.

Room scale is just the begining. And by the way, Oculus is also working towards that kind of VR too.

Third the person who thinks that VR is going to fail you've never used VR. I've had VR in my head about 15 years ago with a friend of mine when we went to Six Flags and played some multiplayer. It was a crappy 300 x 200 monitor per eye, and the graphics back then the I'm sure you can imagine how bad it was but my god just going around in that area in 3-D looking around and actually seeing crap move, that made me excited for 3-D until Nvidia crapped all over that with its requirements. VR is the future of games, however the issue is going to be the now.

I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about here, but those systems from 15-20 years ago were tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The technology was never there for home use. It had nothing to do with Nvidia.

What I mean by the now is the stupid requirements that these morons in the VR area are putting on these things. Must have 90 frames a second, 2160x1200 resolution, and lets be clear here, how many games can even run at 90 frames a second even if you throw as much hardware as you can at them at higher than 1080p? games are not going backwards in the graphics department as much as I hate that they aren't(I personally would rather developers focus on style rather than photorealism but they want to go photorealism) and the games are only going to get more demanding from here on out. I'd much rather just have one VR set up that is 720p per eye and look around with that., people can go "but my low resolution" and I'll just look back at them and say "but I can play my games".

VR isn't a brand new thing that people are just saying you need high level frame rates just because they can. They have been working in this medium, in some cases for decades, and have learned what works and what doesn't. 90 frames per second is the bare minimum that has been determined from years of testing, to be the comfortable for the vast majority of people. Virtual reality at poor frame rates is a very quick way to experience motion sickness. Some people are less susceptible than others, but for a consumer product it has to be ready to 99% of people, not 50%, or 75%.

And to your point about graphics not going backwards. You are dead wrong about that my friend. Take a look at what has been shown for VR games so far. The majority of them are far lower quality graphics than the latest AAA titles for regular displays.
Most developers working in the VR space are independants, or at least brand new upstarts, that are focusing specifically on VR games. They don't have that massive teams found in the major studios you are used to. VR is a new frontier, and there's very different players in this space.

Is you want a low resolution, low refresh rate, ready right now VR headset, pick up an OSVR kit. It sounds like that will suit your desires for the time being. 1080p, 60Hz. $300.

I had very high hopes for the rift and for the vive, but to be completely honest they are killing all my enthusiasm with how high end they want all their products to b., I think most of us here have a 1080p monitor, set whatever game you're playing to 720p and tell me if that looks good or if that looks like hell. That's the reason I'd rather them use a lower resolution screen than have a high resolution one. Price aside it seems like I would have to wait another five goddamn years to get a VR set up when I've already been waiting for 15, I'm sick of the wait, stop adding to it.

Setting your 1080p display to 720p isn't a valid comparison at all. When you have the screen right in front of your eyes it makes a big difference.
You strike me as someone who has not tried modern VR at all. Your memory of what it was like 15 years ago is a romanticized fantasy based on your excitement from it. Try out a DK2 and tell me you don't want a higher resolution.

Virtual reality is a brand new consumer technology. Like any brand new tech, its coming in at a higher price point. Frankly, $600 is not expensive at all for something like this.
4K and ultrawide displays still cost more than that, and there have been high end graphics cards for a very long time.

I don't mean to be rude, but If you aren't the type of person to already have a high end computer, than VR was never meant for you in the first generation.

This isn't an evolution of displays, VR is a whole new medium. It's like the advent of smart phones, or the personal computer, or the television. It's a brand new way to consume media of all kinds. You should be excited.
Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's going to die.

 

[kcarbotte]

Glad to see I'm not entirely alone. I'm very very excited about the development around VR, and I believe eventually everyone will have a headset (or multiple) around the house, similar to TV's. Perhaps in place of TV's. Developers will experiment with a lot of different ways to have an experience in VR, but I predict that the most popular experiences will NOT require constant attention to your head position, or using gestures, and will require minimal physical effort.

Consider watching a movie, VR vs TV. On a TV, I am free to move around my seat, adjust my position, lay my head down, lean forward/back, etc. Even the most comfortable position can become painful if you are static. For a headset to compete with the TV, it needs to NOT require me to keep my head at one angle or prevent me from turning around. I'm sure developers will find ways to do that (perhaps a hardware button that gently "centers" the screen any time I press it?) but that is what VR will compete against.

There will be some fantastic new ways to experience content that only VR can do. Like the game/movie where the little girl is lost, I forget the name. But I think those experiences are unlikely to compete on the same scale as the classic "watching a movie" experience.

What you are describing is not VR, in any way.

The whole point of virtual reality is you are not looking through a window. All of the 2D video applications for VR headsets are simply a 3D rendered room or theater, with a 2D screen on the wall in front of you. When you turn your head, your are in effect looking away from the screen. 2D content doesn't work well on VR headst.

One of the biggest benefits of a TV in your home is you can share the viewing experience with other people. With a head mounted display you can't do that. It takes to much away from the traditional experiience that it will never be more than a niche idea, or a product used primarly while traveling.

VR will most certainly not replace traditional TVs. This is an additional item.
It won't replace your desktop monitor either. There's many things that VR is just not practical for, at all.


If you want a portable, headmounted screen to watch movies on, there are plenty of options coming to market for that task, such as the Vuzix Eyewear or the Avegant Glyph, that serve as static displays mounted on your head.
I personally don't see a big market for these products either.

 

[kcarbotte]

... yea not for me, I pre-ordered the Rift. I want to sit and vegetate when I game, if I wanted to a workout I'll go to a gym or outside. I sure hope all this movement crap can be turned off. I only care for head movement, even then 1:1 is probably not something I'll ... to much movement. But who knows, maybe 1:1 wont be that bad. Current head track software I use in space-flight syms allow for adjusting the head movement ration, hope VR will be the same.

head tracking software for a monitor makes sense, so you can keep your view of the screen while moving your head, but you still see the room around you that keeps your grounded.

In VR you won't want do have it track your head slower or faster than you are actually moving. that will make you sick. You don't have the view of other objects in the room keeping you balanced. VR plays with your vesitbular system, which controls your balance. It is also the same part of your body that reacts to poison, which is why you vomit from motion sickness.

Also for the Vive, the headset is tracked by using the lighthouse boxes, which also does the full room tracking. It's just how the system works.
Oculus will definitely have far more seated demos, but when Touch comes out those experiences will likely be more catered to standing positions.

No arguments from me regarding non-1:1 ratios and getting sick - I figured as much. That and input lag I worry about most regarding getting sick over longer periods of play. I have all the right hardware, but will only know once I get my new toy how I personally do. But I will still prefer sitting on my butt enjoying VR (saying playing a space flight sim like Elite Dangerous etc.) Standing up or ducking my head around or moving around a room, hell no thanks ... maybe the younger crowd will like that ... I think like Wii it will get old fast.

Looking around from a cockpit would been cool as hell, I am very excited about those types of applications for VR!

1st person shooters? Not sure ... maybe if the character is in 3rd person it will help with the disorientation, or puking.

But my point is that for me personal VR experience I would prefer sitting on my butt vegetating ... not moving/jumping around etc.

OK, for gaming, I can see not wanting to be that active.
But what about shopping for a new home? Consider moving to a new city, and being able to preview possible homes and walk around, room to room, and see for yourself what its like to be there.
Or have a digital scan of your room and preview what it would look like with different furniture or decorations before purchasing them.

There are many different possibilities with VR when you can walk around within the space.
You'll see once you get it. Your imagination will go wild once you've tried it out.

Seated experiences will definitely be plentiful, so don't worry. Vive is about having everything you'll need for any kind of VR, whereas Rift will be limited to certain types of experiences, at least in the short term.

BTW, EVE:Valkyrie sounds like your type of game, and its more certainly a seated experience. It comes with your preorder so you'll know soon enough.

Okay you are quite correct, I look at VR more from a gaming perspective

The only issue with the type of application you describe for VR is that the room that you are in wont we 1:1 to the VR room/environment your are exploring. I really dont think walking around will ever be mainstream and even hand movement capture they will keep struggling with. But I think there is more reason for VR to be able to capture your hand movements (taping in the air, grabbing stuff) than walking around.

I think VR underestimate how lazy people are. Keeping your hands in the air, or walking around takes allot of effort. Hold your hands and arms in front of you for 5 min ... see how feel about that. People don't like doing that for any extended duration of time. Moving my mouse a couple cm / a joystick is allot less effort than physically moving my hands around to stuff.

Unless we talking Matrix level integration (still sitting on my butt & chilling) I think walking & extended hand movement capture very gimmicky.

This was my main reason to go for the Rift, they seem to be focused most on what I personally would want from VR - a seat gaming VR experience. All their resources went into that direction, I fully approve.

But all round VR is an exciting new development ... I can't wait to see what companies come up with. Personally I am just happy to be around to see it actually happening in my lifetime.

No one in the VR industry expects virtual reality to take over for traditional gaming. VR will have its place, and it will serve for a certain type of experience.
Once you try it out though, you'll realize what I mean by you will want your hands in the game.
We're not talking about some wierd unintuitive gesture. Developers are integrating natural movements into game control because while you are in VR it just works, and you don't have to think about it at all.

Instead of hitting a button to slash a sword, you swing your arms to mimick the action. VR is about being there. About experiencing the fantasy first hand, not through your imagination.

I'm a lazy bum too, but I welcome the idea of somethign that would get me excited to be more active. I'd much rather play a VR game shooting at people while I ducked for cover and dodged here and there, than go to the gym with a bunch a sweaty people for an hour.

People are lazy, but I think you are overestimating how lazy they are. I like video games and so I sit down to play them. I don't see why I wouldn't want to adapt to a new experience if its offered to me. I don't sit on the couch all evening to be lazy, i do it because that's where my games are. Take the games away from the couch and the equation changes.
I don't think that will happen for everyone, but I'm sure there's a lot of people ready to do just that.

 

[Dan414]

What you are describing is not VR, in any way.

The whole point of virtual reality is you are not looking through a window. All of the 2D video applications for VR headsets are simply a 3D rendered room or theater, with a 2D screen on the wall in front of you. When you turn your head, your are in effect looking away from the screen. 2D content doesn't work well on VR headst.

One of the biggest benefits of a TV in your home is you can share the viewing experience with other people. With a head mounted display you can't do that. It takes to much away from the traditional experiience that it will never be more than a niche idea, or a product used primarly while traveling.

VR will most certainly not replace traditional TVs. This is an additional item.
It won't replace your desktop monitor either. There's many things that VR is just not practical for, at all.

If you want a portable, headmounted screen to watch movies on, there are plenty of options coming to market for that task, such as the Vuzix Eyewear or the Avegant Glyph, that serve as static displays mounted on your head.
I personally don't see a big market for these products either.

I think you're missing my point. You've said what I want isn't Virtual Reality. Okay. Its not. Call it a head mounted display. That's what I want.

I don't believe I want what you describe as virtual reality. You're right - I haven't tried out anything in VR beyond Google's Cardboard. Trips to CES aren't in my budget. I haven't even pre-ordered the Rift - I'm waiting to compare with the Vive. Maybe I'll be convinced of roomscale VR once I can try it on at MicroCenter or BestBuy.

But I think head mounted displays CAN replace monitors and TVs for many types of experiences. Gaming could be one of them. I think Fallout 4 could be AMAZING to play on an HMD. I'm able to be immersed in that game right now, and play for hours without noticing time drift away in the outside world, even on a 1080p 60hz monitor. How much more immersive and cool would it be to play on super-sharp screens filling my vision? What I won't do though: spend 4 hours whipping my head around and holding my arms in front of me to fire at Bloodbugs and SuperMutants.

I hadn't seen the Avegant Glyph before. Thanks for mentioning them. Have you tried the Glyph? I'd be curious to see how that compares in experience to the Big Boys of VR. My guess, is that the half-way there "presence" of something like that will be more appealing than full-immersion VR. We shall see. Too bad it costs more than the Rift.

 

[kcarbotte]

What you are describing is not VR, in any way.

The whole point of virtual reality is you are not looking through a window. All of the 2D video applications for VR headsets are simply a 3D rendered room or theater, with a 2D screen on the wall in front of you. When you turn your head, your are in effect looking away from the screen. 2D content doesn't work well on VR headst.

One of the biggest benefits of a TV in your home is you can share the viewing experience with other people. With a head mounted display you can't do that. It takes to much away from the traditional experiience that it will never be more than a niche idea, or a product used primarly while traveling.

VR will most certainly not replace traditional TVs. This is an additional item.
It won't replace your desktop monitor either. There's many things that VR is just not practical for, at all.

If you want a portable, headmounted screen to watch movies on, there are plenty of options coming to market for that task, such as the Vuzix Eyewear or the Avegant Glyph, that serve as static displays mounted on your head.
I personally don't see a big market for these products either.

I think you're missing my point. You've said what I want isn't Virtual Reality. Okay. Its not. Call it a head mounted display. That's what I want.

I don't believe I want what you describe as virtual reality. You're right - I haven't tried out anything in VR beyond Google's Cardboard. Trips to CES aren't in my budget. I haven't even pre-ordered the Rift - I'm waiting to compare with the Vive. Maybe I'll be convinced of roomscale VR once I can try it on at MicroCenter or BestBuy.

But I think head mounted displays CAN replace monitors and TVs for many types of experiences. Gaming could be one of them. I think Fallout 4 could be AMAZING to play on an HMD. I'm able to be immersed in that game right now, and play for hours without noticing time drift away in the outside world, even on a 1080p 60hz monitor. How much more immersive and cool would it be to play on super-sharp screens filling my vision? What I won't do though: spend 4 hours whipping my head around and holding my arms in front of me to fire at Bloodbugs and SuperMutants.

I hadn't seen the Avegant Glyph before. Thanks for mentioning them. Have you tried the Glyph? I'd be curious to see how that compares in experience to the Big Boys of VR. My guess, is that the half-way there "presence" of something like that will be more appealing than full-immersion VR. We shall see. Too bad it costs more than the Rift.

I didnt get a chance to try the Glyph, but i did try Vuzix Eyewear. It's like having a 100-inch screen in front of you.


To answer your question about how much more immersed. What's i'm talking about is a little different than what you seem to be thinking of when I say immersed.
VR replaces the real world with the game, so moving your head around inside it is 100% necessary. There's no other way for you to be in VR. That's the big difference, you get to look around within the environment in VR. It's not anything like just having a big screen in front of your face.

If you are 100% sure that you don't want to move your head around in a game, then VR is not for you.
I don't believe that you will feel that way after trying a PC connected VR headset though.

 

[draphius]

I am dismayed by all the talk of roomscale VR, ducking, and reaching, I want VR so I can lay down in my bed or recliner and play a game. I hope most games come with a way to turn off head motion requirement. I have a gym membership - I go there for exercise - not to my computer.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

without headtracking u would get alot of motion sickness and even for the toughest it would be a rough experience beyond 30 mins. i have a dk2 and have played TF2 without headtracking, and i was starting to feel quite queasy even around the 20 min mark. i made it to 45 mins but any longer and id maybe have thrown up. first time in my life feeling motion sickenss aswell. 30 foot swells in the ocean? no problem though.

 

[BansheeMarc]

I guarantee we'll be hearing about bs lawsuits soon from people claiming they were hurt jumping around with the headset on.

 

[kcarbotte]

I guarantee we'll be hearing about bs lawsuits soon from people claiming they were hurt jumping around with the headset on.

I guarantee there will be warnings and disclaimers inside the box regarding exactly that.
If you trip and hurt yourself, that's on you. It's a pretty obvious hazard, there's nothing really to sue for.

Now if you were having someone pay to play with it, and not have a person watching over the cable so you don't trip then that's a different story, but it wouldn't be a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the hardware in that case.

 

[BansheeMarc]

I guarantee we'll be hearing about bs lawsuits soon from people claiming they were hurt jumping around with the headset on.

I guarantee there will be warnings and disclaimers inside the box regarding exactly that.
If you trip and hurt yourself, that's on you. It's a pretty obvious hazard, there's nothing really to sue for.

Now if you were having someone pay to play with it, and not have a person watching over the cable so you don't trip then that's a different story, but it wouldn't be a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the hardware in that case.

 

[BansheeMarc]

Just because you write something on a piece of paper it doesn't mean it protects you from being sued, nevermind that insurance companies settle out of court all the time because it's cheaper than going to court.