part 1
There are plenty of physical goods that are regionally priced
Yes, and I can buy them all when there at those regional prices (or when ordered + taxes and customs), without someone complaining that it's not for 'rich Western' people.
and shipping expenses add to the cost of goods. There are also import taxes, restrictions on certain goods, etc, including imports of cars.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with regional coding and complaining about people buying it as cheap as possible. I've mentioned the taxes myself, even. But that has nothing to do with it. Say, I legally ordered and bought a cheap game-DVD from China. I paid all the taxes on it, customs, etc., but it's still cheaper, so I buy it.
Then what, exactly, is your problem with it? All taxes, etc. are dealt with. I'm not speaking of contraband or tax-evasion. The taxes one has to pay have nothing to do with my right as a consumer to buy something cheap; they are independent from that. One can pay taxes, and STILL buy it cheap, after all, and that would be completely legal.
Housing costs, property taxes, etc, are all very regionally dependent.
Electricity, natural gas, etc, coming from the same source going through the same lines/pipes, to different customers/regions can have different prices.
What, wait...housingcosts? Let's keep the analogy correct, here. It's about a consumer-good sold by a private, commercial company publicly on the free market. Housing prices have nothing to do with it. And the equivalent of property taxes would simply be the taxes one has to pay on the goods. And it's not about if they *can* have different prices, it's about if one *can* go for the cheapest price as a customer. If one company gives you natural gas at cheaper prices than the other company, even when it's coming from the same source, then what's me to stop from going for the cheaper one?
I'm not getting where you're going with this line of thought. It rather sounds like substantiating what I just said.
Plenty of goods are subsidized for developing countries, including agricultural equipment, medicine, etc.
Yes, and the one subsidising it is the state, and it does it for humanitarian or other non-commercial benefits or national interest. It's NOT done by a private firm with commercial gains in thought.
The goods that you can buy from India and China may be cheaper, but they are not identical (they do not necessarily match the same quality standards, and those countries don't have the same labour laws or environmental standards as other options, etc).
Could be, but what has that to do with the right of buying something cheap? You're like arguing from a socialist or green standpoint. When I'm buying a game, I'm not giving to charity, nor do I try to better the world by it. If I want(ed) to do that, I would give to charities and other humanitarian organisations. Right now, I'm talking about the commercial act of buying a commercial product. All what you say is pretty irrelevant in that context.
For argument's sake, let's say the quality is the same (certainly with a digital copy it will be), and it's still cheaper. Do I have the right to buy the cheap product, yes or no?
Of course there are no restriction on buying things in other countries if you go there yourself, but (unlike digital goods) you are paying to go there, paying to get back, and there are import regulations and duty/taxes upon returning to your own country.
Ok, here we finally come to the crux of the matter. Let me ask you: why would that matter? Why would I have the legal right to buy it when I go there, but not when I let it delivered, after paying the taxes and customs? BOTH are perfectly legal ways to get that product. I don't see the rationale for allowing the one, but forbidding the other.
Besides, you seem to have no problem if people 'go there' and buy it... but let me ask you; if I bought it there, would I be able to play it here, if it was regional coded? I would guess not. Then what are you going on about? That makes it clear it has *nothing* to do with me 'going there' and buying, versus ordering it from there to here. If you think it makes sense for that kind of protectionism, it won't matter one iota in a de facto way. In both cases, you STILL would have paid for it legally, and you STILL wouldn't be allowed to play it.
Basically, your argument is that people in rich countries shouldn't have to pay slightly more than those in poor countries, that people in poor countries should have to pay the same as those in rich countries, even if that puts games completely out reach.
What? No. My argument is that people should be able to buy commercial products that are offered on the free market where and when they can/want, and be able to use them, EVEN if it's cheaper than somewhere else.
It's fine with me if you DO place cheaper prices on the same product, only I ask that you don't complain if less-poor people buy it at that cheaper price, then. So I'm not saying you *have* to put a higher price on it; that was merely a suggestion as a possibility for not having to deal with the rather normal practise of people wanting to buy the best deal they can get.
And, well, the emotional hyperbole not withstanding, it's not THAT slightly: it can be a difference of up to 75% in some cases. 'Slight' doesn't seem an adequate description, thus.
So, tell me: why SHOULD I need to pay triple the price, if I can buy it legally in another country for a third of the price? You keep acting as if it's some sort of humanitarian charity-thing, but, as said, it basically means that that commercial company wants to maximise it's profit and get more marketshare on that regional market.
I repeat: why would I have to pay more for that?
If you can buy a computer in Holland for half the price of the same one in Belgium, are you going to buy it in Belgium, because you want to keep the shop-owner's shop alive? Because if so, you can as well throw competition and thus the totality of the free market overboard, then. Almost NO ONE likes to pay more than he has to, period. If a company gets in competition with itself by lowering his own prices for the same product, who's fault is it that they are incurring less profit, then? Why would they then be entitled to artificially create protection-measures which go contrary to the free market (the same free market they often use to their advantage when it suits them)? Why should my right to buy a product at the given price, and be able to use it normally, be curbed because one made the decision to distribute their own products with different price settings?
If you don't want to lower your prices, than make a global one-price setting. If you *do* want that, then don't complain if people (that you don't want to buy the cheaper ones because it means less profit, of course!) buy it cheap nevertheless. Because that just means you only want the advantages and reap the benefits, but do not want to deal with the disadvantages from the internal competitiveness you've introduced yourself by your own choice.
That's what I'm saying.
