Wouldn't it make sense to region lock cheaper versions, while keeping the "fully priced" version for non-underprivileged markets unlocked? AFAIK that's how it is done, and it makes some sense. However, I admit, I thought through the scenario for a grand total of 5 minutes, so I probably have missed something.

The companies have no issue in using labor from "underprivileged" markets, so why shouldn't we customers be able to buy from wherever?

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

A bit of a sidenote before I address your point directly: do you have a source confirming that all those companies that favor regional pricing for their games use labor from "underprivileged" markets?

As for why we shouldn't be able to, there are two good reasons:

1. If everything is priced at a regular price, no one in "underprivileged" markets will be able to afford those games, so cue piracy.

2. If everything is priced at the price point of "underprivileged" markets, it makes zero sense to produce those games, as it would mean that the company will surely go broke by doing so.

>do you have a source confirming that all those companies that favor regional pricing for their games use labor from "underprivileged" markets?

If not directly, they still benefit indirectly from any downward pressure put on wages.

> so cue piracy

Piracy is inevitable. No matter how low of a price you set for it, there will be countless people who'd rather have it for "free".

I get it that this is a joke, but more seriously I'd argue most labor is "region locked". Likely to within a few dozen miles of where you live.

It's actually fairly difficult to just buy labor from another region without doing the equivalent of "buying a regional console" (i.e. building a local office/factory, where people actually speak the right language).

Say hello to my leetle VPN.

Instead of price discrimination based on location, do it by time.

Start at $69.99, in English only. Then add language localizations in order of decreasing mean disposable income for native speakers. Gradually drop the price by $5 per quarter, but also randomly put it on sale for 25% off for 36 hours at a time, to catch the folks who wishlisted the game and are watching the price.

Rich folks buy at $70 and play it right away. Poor folks wait 3.5 years and then get it for $5 .

Other people speak English too.

Why would "poor folks" in other markets wait?

They don't have to, but it's probably because they don't have enough in their entertainment budget to buy at the higher price.

They could always pirate now, and then buy a catch-up license at a price they could better afford at a later time.

That's Steam sales, modulo the localisations.

That is basically already the reality of Steam with the discounts, albeit it timed, in addition to regional pricing.

Why should people in underprivileged markets have to wait years before they can play the game?

Why should a development studio have to wait years before they can pay off the costs of production? The only people who have some inherent right to enjoy their product are the ones who created it. Samuel Clemens directed that the Autobiography of Mark Twain be published 100 years after his death, which was 2010. Why did we have to wait for that? Because of intellectual property laws.

Poorer people have to wait, because the developers have high rent and daily expenses, and price discrimination helps the supplier capture enough of the trade value of their good that they can pay those expenses.

A software program is unlikely to have repeat buyers. It's not like corn or toilet paper, where you use one up and buy another. So, if you hypothetically line up every potential buyer by the price they are willing to pay, you can capture the maximum value of trade by walking down the line and selling one copy to each person at their price. Once you sell one copy to everyone in line, you're done. But buyers keep their price secret, or lie about it, and paying your walking salesperson would eat up all that extra money. So instead, you put your price up on a big board, decrease it over time, and when it drops below a buyer's price, they just step up to the counter and purchase.

Paying more allows a customer to buy earlier. Waiting in line longer allows a customer to pay less. How is this unfair? And if it is unfair, how is that the supplier's fault, rather than being inherent in the copyright system?

This isn't limited to digital goods.

Here in Norway we travel to Sweden and buy mainly meat, tobacco and alcohol, due to lower taxes.

In 2017 it was estimated[1] to be about 2.6 billion USD worth. This is in a country with some 5.5 million inhabitants, many of which do not participate in this due to distance to border.

Businesses and the government aren't too thrilled about this, for obvious reasons.

[1]: https://www.svenskhandel.se/nyhetscenter/pressmeddelanden/20...

Just make it localized in the region language only for that price. Ok, doesn't work with Nigeria, since they speak english. But it would work in Asia, and in a lot of other African and south American countries.

Now you are conflating geography with language.

On that note: why not just skip geography entirely? Just sell the localized versions worldwide, which each translation being priced according to what the users of the respective languages would on average be willing/able to pay.

Yes but it can be a useful business approximation depending of your target.

I'd rather feel ripped off, but have access to a game, than to not have access to the game at all. Of course, its easy to say that now and in reality it probably drives people to piracy. Its a difficult problem.

Well, that's just not true. It can be, but most stores I know just focus on limiting your pricing based on geographical location, while making it harder to spoof your address. DRM just isn't a factor here.