By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JaggedSac said:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/04/how-important-is-the-199-xbox-360/

How important is the $199 Xbox 360?


Microsoft has long acknowledged that it considers $200 the "sweet spot" of console price points. Now that the manufacturer has finally hit that sweet spot with the new $199 Xbox 360 Arcade, we've been wondering exactly what kind of impact Microsoft can expect, historically, in its bottom line. Luckily, Matt Matthews over at Edge Online did all the heavy lifting for us over a year ago, looking at the effect of system pricing on sales numbers in the last generation of the console wars.

The results, as you can see above, are pretty clear. Only 13% of original Xbox systems sold at the $300 price point, and a plurality of sales came at an eventual floor of $150. Sony's PS2 similarly only sold a quarter of its eventual installed base at a price greater than $200 (Nintendo's Gamecube never sold for greater than $200).

Of course, history is an imprecise guide here. The original Xbox dropped under $200 within six months of its initial release, while the Xbox 360 went nearly three years (exactly 1018 days) before hitting the sweet spot. And while the original Xbox also had competition from Sony and Nintendo, it didn't have to compete with "premium" configurations offered by Microsoft itself. Still, we can't imagine being the first current-gen system to be available for under two Benjamins will hurt sales of the system. For now, the unanswerable question remains: Exactly how much will it not hurt?

 

I think the bolded has a lot to due with those %'s.

It was available on the market for ~55 months. Only 6 of those were >$200 according to this article.

So for 89% of its life it was sub $200 which only account for 87% of its sales(If I take $200 above to be literally $199 and thus <$200). Meh, I think there is no proof that <$200 was the key.

If you remove the actual $200 sales percent above you have only 64% of its sales which definitely disproves this theory.