Microsoft to release 'Halo: Spartan Assault' for Windows 7, Vista via Steam on April 4

If you own a PC, the only current way to play "Halo: Spartan Assault" on your rig was to install Windows 8 or 8.1 and download it from the Windows Store. Next week that will change, as Microsoft's top-down sci-fi shooter finally comes to the much bigger Windows 7 PC audience, along with Windows Vista.

A listing on Valve's Steam service shows that "Halo: Spartan Assault" will be released on April 4 for the price of $4.99. The description states that this version of the game will support Steam achievements, rather than the Windows 8-based Xbox Live achievements. It also won't support the two player multiplayer missions that were included in the recent Xbox One and Xbox 360 versions.

Speaking of which, both of the game's console versions have now received a permanent price cut from $14.99 to $9.99 each. Also, the Halo Waypoint site has posted word that the Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 versions, which are currently priced at $6.99 each, will see a deep price reduction to just $1.99 each from April 3-9. On April 10, the price will go up again, but just to $4.99 each on a permanent basis.

Source: Steam | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Videos shows leaked Windows Phone 8.1 OS running on Lumia 630

Next Story

Microsoft does not "strictly enforce the limit" on Office for iPad installations

38 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Really??? I'm all for MS doing things better for PC gaming but a top down shooter pft I thought we left those behind in the 90's atleast I did, the last time I played a top down shooter was Tyrian on a nVidia TnT2 M64

I'm surprised no one else pointed this out. But how can one single game have a price difference of $14.99 to $7.99 for the same game. Just because its on a different platform? I wouldn't buy into that! coop aside it is the same exact game with a big price difference. #weaksauce

You must be new to gaming as that practice has been established for ages, e.g. compare prices of PC games to those on the Xbox…

tytytucke said,
I'm surprised no one else pointed this out. But how can one single game have a price difference of $14.99 to $7.99 for the same game. Just because its on a different platform? I wouldn't buy into that! coop aside it is the same exact game with a big price difference. #weaksauce

I am guessing Steam likes to make money, and they weren't going to release and manage the game for free out of love for Microsoft. ;)

Supporting Windows 7 should have come before Windows 8 as Windows 7 is the version of Windows that has the most users. Thank you at last.

fastcat said,
Supporting Windows 7 should have come before Windows 8 as Windows 7 is the version of Windows that has the most users. Thank you at last.

Well, that might be why its second. They want reasons for you to move to 8, not stay with 7, Vista or XP. Games are just one way to do that, although I really wish they'd get serious about bringing XB, 360 and XBLA games to PC.

fastcat said,
Supporting Windows 7 should have come before Windows 8 as Windows 7 is the version of Windows that has the most users. Thank you at last.

The game came out on Windows Phone first.

Chikairo said,
They want reasons for you to move to 8
The reasons should be built into the OS. If those reasons aren't there, then why even have a new OS?

I guess they gambled on a massive presence of Win8 out there, and after some number crunching, came to the conclusion that they'd better sort out a Win7/Vista version because that's where most of the market is (and should be).

fastcat said,
Supporting Windows 7 should have come before Windows 8 as Windows 7 is the version of Windows that has the most users. Thank you at last.

Windows 7 doesn't have XBox apps like Windows 8 does.

surreyguy said,
I guess they gambled on a massive presence of Win8 out there, and after some number crunching, came to the conclusion that they'd better sort out a Win7/Vista version because that's where most of the market is (and should be).

Or maybe it was built in the WP8/Win8 frameworks, that don't work on Windows 7. (Which is what actually happened.)

They had to retool the game to work on Vista/7, essentially pulling the pure DirectX code and putting it in a wrapper that compensates for the missing APIs on 7/Vista.

It is strange how everyone has some weird assumption that fits their personal narrative instead of just looking at the information available.

Ian William said,

I don't think there is anything wrong with Windows Vista.


People on Windows XP said the same thing.

It would be nice if the combined Steam and Xbox Achievements. I can live with Steam, but I'd like all my achievements going to my Xbox profile.

Now put out one of the Halo games I actually want to play for the PC and put it on Steam, because it sure as hell isn't this thing.

To bad it's a fairly generic twin stick shooter. And the PC version still (won't ever?) doesn't have online coop like the XBLA version.

Raa said,
Insert obligatory comment about outdated O/S here.

This is not like the case with Windows XP. Unlike that operating system, Windows 7 offers little (if any) security advantages over Windows Vista. Software compatibility is not (or should not) be an issue since most of the software compatible with Windows 7 is also compatible with Windows Vista.

It should also be noted that Windows Vista received the Platform Update in late 2009, which was comprised of major new Windows 7 components and runtime libraries.

While I agree with some of your points, by the same logic Microsoft should update Windows 7 with tech from Windows 8.

Sorry, won't happen. (Sadly)

Raa said,
While I agree with some of your points, by the same logic Microsoft should update Windows 7 with tech from Windows 8.

Sorry, won't happen. (Sadly)

There's just one thing wrong with that argument. Microsoft doesn't have to update Windows Vista with its successor's technology because the corporation has already done so.

I guess the point that I am trying to make is is: If Windows 7 is considered a modern operating system, then Windows Vista should be considered one as well.

Fair enough, but at what point does an O/S become an unmodern operating system?
Microsoft had to make a decision about what to support. Vista lost out.

Given the figures of people (not) running it, this was an economically viable move to make for them.

Raa said,
Fair enough, but at what point does an O/S become an unmodern operating system?
Microsoft had to make a decision about what to support. Vista lost out.

Given the figures of people (not) running it, this was an economically viable move to make for them.

I guess it depends on a variety of factors.

Yes, Windows Vista has lost out because of its market share, not because it doesn't have the technology that newer applications require, etc. One only has to look at Microsoft's commitment to the server version of Windows Vista to support this position. Unlike Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008 has (actually support was extended for it to have) the same support cutoff date as its successor, Windows Server 2008 R2.

Edit: There are components that will run on Windows Server 2008, but not Windows Vista, such as PowerShell 3.0. Although one could make an argument against using Vista because of this, it should be noted that this is only a consequence of mainstream support for Vista being terminated. There was no technical reason why mainstream support could not have been extended for Vista as well; the decision to not extend support was undoubtedly due to Vista's negative perception, which may have been the sole contributing factor.

But I agree with you that it was an economically viable move to make. It's just a pity that it had to be this way.

Edited by Ian William, Mar 29 2014, 1:06am :

I hope this is part of MS's new commitment to PC gaming. If it is, I like the direction they're heading in! It doesn't matter how you buy their games, just that you buy them at all. Committing to Steam is reassuring because the service has a lot of support and momentum and won't just get dropped one day.

Geezy said,
I hope this is part of MS's new commitment to PC gaming. If it is, I like the direction they're heading in! It doesn't matter how you buy their games, just that you buy them at all. Committing to Steam is reassuring because the service has a lot of support and momentum and won't just get dropped one day.
Yay, I knew not buying it through the stores would pay off, now I HAVE to get this. :p

Geezy said,
I hope this is part of MS's new commitment to PC gaming.

I really hope this isn't part of Microsoft's new commitment to PC gaming, as the last thing I'm interested in is budget, casual titles. Using Steam is great but not if the games themselves aren't. It's not like using Steam is anything new for Microsoft - Age Of Empires 3 was released a while back and it was hugely overpriced.

Until I see AAA titles being released on PC, either as an exclusive or released at the same time as the console version, I won't believe a word of Microsoft's supposed recommitment to PC gaming as the claim has been made many times before.

theyarecomingforyou said,
the last thing I'm interested in is budget, casual titles.
I was specifically talking about releasing to Steam. I agree though, I would like to see MS's bigger titles make it to PC, I think everyone would!
Romero said,
I hope they commit to PC gaming without requiring Steam.
It seems like they don't, you can buy the game on the Windows store or Steam, whichever you prefer. Having the choice sounds great to me, especially if they have launch date parity in the future!