"What the...? Why am I paying $60 for a game when I can buy the same game in Nigeria for $5!"
vs.
"Aw man, there's a cool Japan-only Fire Emblem game that I can't play because it only works on Japanese consoles..."
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
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).
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.
If not directly, they still benefit indirectly from any downward pressure put on wages.
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".
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 .
Why would "poor folks" in other markets wait?
They could always pirate now, and then buy a catch-up license at a price they could better afford at a later time.
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?
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...