Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While two-sided platforms (e.g., video game consoles) depend on complements (e.g., games) for their success, the success of complements is also influenced by platform-level dynamics. Research suggests that greater platform adoption benefits complements by providing more potential users, but this assumes that platform adopters are homogeneous. We build on extensive research exploring the heterogeneity between early and late platform adopters to identify counterintuitive dynamics for complements. Complements launched early in a platform’s life cycle face an audience entirely of early platform adopters, whereas later-launching complements face a mixed audience of both early and late adopters, and we argue that differences in preferences and behavior between early and late adopters affect whether complements will succeed and which types will be most successful. We explore these dynamics in the context of the console video game industry using a unique data set of 2,918 video games released in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2007. We show that despite the increase in the potential user pool as the platform evolves, video games launched later in the platform life cycle realize lower sales than those launched earlier. While increased competition explains part of this effect, we show substantial evidence consistent with our theory of preference differences between early and late adopters. This includes the finding that the negative effect is stronger for novel games and that the gap between popular and less popular complements widens as later adopters move into the platform, consistent with late adopters being risk averse and seeking to avoid purchasing mistakes. The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1183 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".