When I was in business school, one of our lecturers in our ethics class was one of the main consultants that worked the Steam project to create regional price differences and other geofencing. It was a very interesting class. The takeaway is that it can be seen as morally responsible to charge someone is a poorer country less for the same game. It is called price discrimination and it is done in many industries including air travel and pharmaceuticals. Otherwise, you would price an entire market out of a product. In many respects, the richer countries are subsidizing the poorer countries. The argument that the price should be the lowest one on the board anywhere is not realistic because a company needs to generate margins high enough to make the opportunity worthwhile otherwise it is not going to produce the product. In other words, Companies will not make a product if they are going to lose monkey selling it, but they will charge one market more to sell to another market at a loss if there is other intrinsic value like user adoption to create a community. They are selling digital content in this instance, but it still took money to make and money to distribute, so the argument that the product is easy to replicate over and over again is a moot point. Getting some money in a market versus no money is beneficial. If people pirate that games en masse by even just purchasing them VPN at a lower rate hurts the developers. I believe in some piracy under certain circumstances, such as when you truly can’t afford something when you are growing up. It is in the marketers best interest to let kids get hooked at a young age.