TL;DR: The bottom of this post has some nice, high-res versions of this PC GAME logo in different variations for you to download

When a game's marketing material needs to indicate that it's for console or mobile, it's an easy process. Each platform has a single basic logo that is instantly recognisable and crystal clear in its intentions. Sure, there's some variation here and there (eg. displaying the PS4 logo without its PS icon, or using Android's green robot instead of the Google Play button), but those variations tend to add flexibility rather than complication.

On the other hand, the PC, despite being the world's largest, most powerful, and most complete gaming platform, doesn't have this convenience. No doubt this is a side effect of the versatility and relative brand autonomy that PC gaming enjoys. 

When you want to slap on a logo on your game poster, box, or trailer indicating that your game will be out on PC, you have about as many options as the other platforms combined....and most of those options have problems.

The Windows 10 logo (top left) has two problems. Firstly, it's ugly as sin. But more importantly, it can carry connotations of Microsoft's Windows 10 app store, which a separate, closed marketplace that has little to do with PC gaming proper. While other Windows logos (eg. the Windows 7 logo - top centre) don't have this connotation, they do scream "outdated", and users could infer that your game isn't compatible with newer versions of Windows. This problem will eventually occur with the Windows 10 logo too.

Then there are "Games for Windows" type logos, which make sense - but those are reminiscent of the Games For Windows Live service, and the last thing you want to do is traumatise potential customers. 

Many devs simply use the Steam logo, since that's virtually synonymous with PC games for many people. This certainly makes sense in some situations, but has problems in others. Obviously, it excludes other storefronts like GOG (or perhaps a Humble Widget on your game's own website). It's also problematic for games in development which haven't gone through the Greenlight process yet. Stating that your game will be on a platform that hasn't officially accepted it yet is basically false advertising, no matter how unlikely it is that your game will fail to be Greenlit (going by the average quality of Steam New Releases nowadays, it's pretty unlikely).

​Some more broad and generic PC game logos tend to carry a "CD rom" or "DVD rom" tag, which is logical (though still unnecessary) on a physical boxed copy of your game, but makes little sense anywhere else. 

The logo on the bottom right is about as close as we've come to a logo that is both generic and widely recognised. This is certainly an adequate option in terms of clear messaging. But it's pretty ugly. Those clunky, octagonal letters crammed into a too-small box look like something designed by a programmer from the 386 era, rather than a contemporary graphic design. To my eyes, this logo placed next to a slick and modern logo like the Xbox One logo would send the message that the PC version is archaic and technically inferior, when the opposite is likely to be true. But I'm a PC Master Race kind of guy, so maybe that's just me being too precious.

The best PC logo I've seen comes from Fallout 4. There's nothing magical about it - it's a very simple typographical logo featuring a square, a line, and a fairly generic font. But there's an elegance to it. It looks strong and clean. Unlike the 'octagonal' one above, it breathes, and its negative space forms pleasant, nicely balanced shapes, not ugly and jarring ones. 

So, this is the one! In lieu of better options, I've officially declared this my personal choice for Official PC Game logo. ;)  The fact that it comes from Bethesda (whose games are always 100 times better on PC, due to their incredible modding capability, and the ability for those mods to push the hardware) is just icing on the cake.

So I've recreated a high res version of the logo, with a few minor tweaks for clarity. Here it is on a poster of my game Spryke.

Below are two raster versions of the logo you can use on your own games. Or download the zip, which contains 4 high res variants, as well as a PSD containing vector versions.

But wait, isn't this infringing on Bethesda's copyright? 

Uh, I guess you could say that technically it is.  And if Bethesda ask me to take these down, I will. But honestly I'd be shocked, and a little dismayed, if that happened. The logo has nothing to do with any of their IP, and other people using it on other games would in no way constitute bad faith towards Bethesda. I can't see how it would benefit them in any way to not want others to use it, and - though I might be wrong - I don't believe they would care.

In a previous post, I argued that real PC gamers use game pads. Why? Because power and versatility are what being part of the Glorious PC Master Race™ is all about.

A smart PC gamer knows to utilise the versatility of the PC by tweaking graphics settings, choosing her own hardware combination, using mods.....and yes, by using whichever control peripheral is best for the job at hand.

I own 7 types of control peripherals, and I use all of them for gaming, depending on what game they're best suited to. Below is an overview of each type, with a breakdown of the pros and cons of each.

Naturally, this topic involves a lot of personal preference and subjectivity, though I've tried to be as objective as I could. Also keep in mind that the list of peripherals isn't exhaustive (I don't cover flight sticks, motion controllers or the Steam Controller), as I've chosen to only talk about those that I know well. 

Let's get one thing clear from the outset. Anyone who tells you that kb+m/gamepad/headwand is the One True Way to play games is experiencing a lack of imagination, nothing more.

The perfect gaming peripheral simply hasn't been invented yet. All the existing ones are flawed one way or another. Sure, you'll get by just fine in almost all games with just one peripheral. But if you want the best possible gaming experience (and as PC gamers, that's often what we strive for), you'll want to minimise those flaws by knowing when to match peripheral X with game Y.

Of course, not everyone owns 7 peripherals, and not everyone wants to. In general, you can get an optimal experience in 90% of games by investing in a good keypad, power mouse, and gamepad. If you don't need "optimal" and just want "good", then drop the keypad and power mouse, and just purchase a gamepad to go with your regular keyboard and mouse.

I explore each peripheral in depth below. But here's a chart that roughly outlines some good rules of thumb. Yes, there will be exceptions, and personal preference will always factor to some degree.

If you've read my main PhysX article, you'll already know that a dedicated PhysX card is generally a good idea, frequently providing a 15-30% framerate boost, and reducing stuttering to boot. But how does it fare in Witcher 3?


Despite falling short of some expectations (I'm particularly disappointed by the environment texture quality), Witcher 3 is still without a doubt one of the best-looking games ever made. The detail is dense, the art design is magnificent, and there's an impressive amount of physics on display. 

When it comes to hair, Witcher 3 is in a class of its own. Think Tomb Raider's TressFX but less showy, and applied more frequently. Geralt's hair is simply the most natural-looking hair you've ever seen in a game, and the fur on some of the creatures is just fantastic. Of course, all this hair (up to 125,000 strands on-screen at a time, apparently!) comes at a performance cost, and unfortunately, it doesn't use PhysX. Witcher 3's hair physics uses Nvidia HairWorks, which uses your main GPU only. 


Witcher 3 doesn't use PhysX for hair, but it does use it for cloth and destruction effects. These effects are used on all platforms (consoles too), and are said to use the CPU. However, I can confirm that they do utilise my dedicated PhysX card.....though not much - the most I saw was about 9% usage.

Ok, so I did some tests. 

My specs: 
CPU:    core i7 4770k
GPUs:  Titan SLI (x2), GTX650ti for PhysX
Driver:   352.86 ("Witcher 3 ready")


I went to areas where there were a lot of PhysX enabled objects (flags, banners, hanging herbs, etc.) and tested the framerate both while standing still, and while using the Aard sign to fling everything about. I then averaged the results below.

Without dedicated PhysX card: 50.1
With dedicated PhysX card: 50.8

Yup. Not very impressive at all. I'll add that I don't think the 0.7fps is mere statistical noise. I really did notice a ~1 fps difference in most of the areas I tested in, especially when throwing Aard. But 1fps is 1fps, so who cares, right?

I'll also add a caveat: I'm not very far into the game. It's entirely possible that there are some areas I haven't seen that are much more demanding for PhysX (This happens very often in PhysX-enabled games).  It's also entirely possible that with a levelled up Geralt who possess a much stronger Aard, I'd see much larger and more taxing destruction PhysX effects . So, while I'm not flipping somersaults about my 0.7fps increase, I am at least content to know that my PhysX card will be ready to absorb anything the game might throw at it later on.

So the upshot is this: Witcher 3 ain't no Metro: Last Light. If you already have a PhysX card, keep it in - who knows, it may save you the occasional minor slowdown. But if you don't, don't go buying one just for Witcher 3. 

So, you want to tell Windows to always open certain filetypes with a certain program. You right-click on a file in Windows explorer, and hover over "Open-With...". A list of applications pops up, but the program you want isn't on there. So you select "Choose default program...". You get a popup with a list of "Recommended programs", but the program you want isn't there either.


You hit "Browse", and find the .exe of your program yourself. So far so good. Now you hit "Open". Everything seems to work......but wait - the program you supposedly selected doesn't actually appear in the list, and double-clicking the file still opens it using the previous default program. Huh?

This happened to me when I tried to make Photoshop the default program for the file extensions JPG, PNG, or PSB. Have you had a similar problem? If so, I've got another question for you: the program you're trying to use - has it ever been updated or had its location changed? If so, you're probably in luck. Try the solution below.

• Download a little utility called Open With View (scroll down to the Download OpenWithView link).
• Extract the ZIP archive and run OpenWithView.exe
• Look for your desired program in the left column (in my case it was Photoshop.exe)
• Look over to the "Command Line" column and check the program location. Is it outdated or incorrect? (in my case it was C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC\Photoshop.exe, when it should have been C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CC 2014\Photoshop.exe)
• Right-click the program and choose Disable selected items. Close the OpenWithView utility
• You can now go back to Windows Explorer and try changing the "open with..." settings again, with the usual method. It should work now
• reopen OpenWithView and right-click your program, then select Enable selected items

That worked a treat for me. I hope it worked for you.

I've already posted about this on my Razer Sabertooth article, but it deserves its own post.

If you're a PC gamer who uses an xbox 360 gamepad, you might unwittingly be running a program called Xboxstat.exe, which comes with the official xbox gamepad drivers, and launches itself at bootup. Unlike most background programs, this one consumes a lot of resources. On my system, it frequently hogged up to 13% of the CPU resources. And not just in idle, but even when my PC was working hard and really needed those resources. Others have reported it consuming 50% or even 90% of theirs!

Xboxstat.exe isn't required for the controller to work, and removing it makes no difference to gameplay. I don't know exactly what it does - I believe it collects statistical information about your games for Microsoft. Whatever its intended purpose, it's surely not important enough to warrant slowing down our PCs with massive CPU loads. Get rid of it using the method below. 

• Press the windows key, type msconfig.exe and press enter
• Click the startup tab
• Scroll down until you find Microsoft Xbox 360 Accessories (in the Command column it will be something like C:\Program Files\Microsoft Xbox 360 Accessories\Xboxstat.exe), then uncheck its box
• Click ok
• If a popup notifies you that you made changes, tell it not to remind you again, unless you want that annoying popup each time you boot up
• After you next restart, Xboxstat.exe won't clog up your resources any more.

I've wanted to write this post for a while. But first, let's get my PC gaming credentials out of the way: I'm an elitist, know-it-all, over-privileged member of the PC Gaming Master Race™. I haven't owned a console since 1983. My gaming rig has three GPUs, a meticulously overclocked CPU, and a somewhat embarrassing abundance of blue LEDs. When I recently quit my job to become an indie game developer it was, naturally, to make a PC game. 

So yep, I've earned my PC gaming stripes. And I use a gamepad. And so should you. 

If PC gaming is about anything, it's about power and customisation. Why is Skyrim 10 times better on PC than on console? Yes, resolution and framerate have something to do with it. But mostly it's because you can customise the bejeezus out of Skyrim with mods that greatly improve the graphics, audio, gameplay, UI, and add tons of new content. 

Ever wondered whether all those system tray programs lower your FPS? 

When I was younger, my low-budget PC struggled to run most games, so I made it a habit to shut down any unused background programs, virus scanners, and services before every gaming session.

Nowadays, I'm older, have a real job, and am fortunate enough to be able to spend more money on my beloved hobby. With a high-end CPU and two high-end GPUs in SLI, I have the luxury of being able to just boot up a game, put all settings to max, turn on 3Dvision, and enjoy what is usually a smooth, sumptuous gaming experience. But I started wondering: was I hurting my performance by forsaking this old habit? Could I still get a noticeable boost by shutting off a few programs before I launch a game? 

Conventional wisdom says that 'No, those days are over': today's CPUs are much better at multi-tasking, so leaving background programs running shouldn't impact gaming in any serious way. Still, I decided to find out for myself, if only for peace of mind.

So, you've decided to join the true PC Gaming Master Race and get 3Dvision. Nice one! Once you've experienced the exquisite immersion that comes from gaming in proper 3D, you'll find it hard to ever go back. But 3Dvision comes with a performance cost, and you're wondering how your PC will handle it. How much 3Dvision affects your FPS varies game by game, but there are some rules of thumb.

In 3Dvision, the GPU needs to pump out twice the frames as in 2D (one for each eye). Based on this, 3Dvision users sometimes make two claims:

• Claim #1: Turning on 3Dvision in a game will generally halve the FPS
• Claim #2: 3Dvision and SLI are a match made in heaven, since the former requires two [similar] frames per eye, and the latter gives you two [similar] GPUs with which to render them.

Intuitively, these claims sound fair enough, but I decided to do some testing and find out for sure.

The Razer Sabertooth game controller is based on the Xbox 360 gamepad, and is supposed to work out of the box as if it were a standard Xbox 360 gamepad. It doesn't always do this though. If Device Manager fails to recognise your Razer Sabertooth, follow the below steps. I'm using Windows 7 64bit. I'm not sure if this works on Windows 8 or other versions.

I recently had an odd problem. I have Adobe Creative Suite 5 installed, as well as Photoshop CS6. Since Adobe Bridge comes installed with Photoshop, it also means that I now have two versions of Bridge installed: CS5 (CS5.1 actually) and CS6.

My problem was that whenever I tried to run Bridge CS6, Bridge CS5 would open instead - even when I went to the Adobe Bridge CS6 source folder and double clicked bridge.exe.

It turns out that there's an easy fix. The problem is that Bridge 5 is still loading itself into your memory when you start your PC. So, with its 'foot in the door' in your RAM, it automatically launches itself whenever you try to launch Bridge - even if you try to launch a different version.

To solve the problem:

• press the windows key
  
• type msconfig and press enter
  
• select the startup tab
  
• scroll down until you find Adobe Bridge CS5 (or CS5.1 or whatever), then uncheck it
  
• Click ok, and restart
  

That should solve it, as Bridge 5 should no longer load itself up on startup. If the problem persists however, try the following:

• Open Bridge 5
  
• select edit/preferences (or press Ctrl-K)
  
• from the list on the left, select "Startup Scripts"
  
• choose disable all and click ok
  
• restart the computer
  

Once in a while, I load up my Windows 7 PC and, for some inexplicable reason, everything on the screen appears a bit too dim and grey (except for the mouse cursor, which remains bright white). The above image shows the problem, albeit somewhat exaggerated. It only happens rarely though, and restarting the PC usually makes it go away - though having to restart is frustrating.

Googling reveals that a lot of people get this problem, though few seem to know what the source is or how to fix it, and it took me a long time to find the solution. Though I finally did (at least, it works for me):

UPDATE: Windows 10 fixes now also provided

If you draw or paint with a wacom tablet on Windows 7, you may have suffered through one of Microsoft's more puzzling punishments: those horrible little circles that hound your cursor and hamper your ability to draw smoothly. From what I gather, they're actually designed for touch-screen monitors, so it's frustrating that Microsoft forces them onto wacom users where they don't belong.

I found it surprisingly hard to find the solution to this issue online. Part of the problem is that there are two separate circles, each with a separate solution. Another part is that one of the solutions I frequently came across doesn't work on Windows 7 Home Premium Edition. The below solutions do.

Whether it's the littered newspapers that gracefully catch the wind under Batman's feet in the Arkham games, chunks of wall crumbling under gunfire in Metro: Last Light, or the technicolor mayhem of a singularity grenade in Borderlands 2, PhysX can add a great deal of dynamism to a game. Unfortunately, it usually comes with a substantial (and often underestimated) performance cost - not just in the form of a FPS hit, but also microstuttering or downright freezes.

We can counteract this performance penalty by dedicating a secondary video card exclusively to PhysX, but how much does it actually help? I've long known the benefits of a dedicated PhysX card from personal experience, but until now I'd never tested them systematically.