[not_a_shill]

>Now, you could call it subsidizing in that there are probably products that wouldn't be brought to market without the NA market to pay for them, but that's not really "subsidizing".

That's every product ever made for profit by a developer in a 1st world country. It's still essentially subsidizing even if you don't like the optics of the word.

[TeMPOraL]

Depending on the specifics of the business model (e.g. is the marginal good sold paying primarily for the up-front investment, or for the per-item costs), you can sometimes call it "NA subsidizing everyone else", or in other cases "vendor overcharging NA customers because they're wealthier on average", or in yet other cases, "selling at the local market rate".

[foota]

It's not subsidizing though.

It would be subsidizing if the effect were that Americans pay more so that people in other countries pay less.

But the alternative to Americans paying more isn't the other people having to pay more, the alternative is the product not existing. (or, alternatively, the company making less profit).

There might be some cases where if the US market didn't exist, the price in another country would go up, but it would happen because a company wasn't able to sustain a lower price with the reduced quantity, and would therefore have to settle for selling less quantity at a higher price.

[mr_toad]

Subsidising would imply that they’re selling in other markets for a loss. They’re not, there’s no subsidy.

[greiskul]

From popular internet knowledge, games are more expensive in Australia then NA (Including digital distribution). Would you say that Australia is subsidizing games for Americans?

[ipaddr]

If there were more Australians or if part of the money didn't go into government taxes

[simonh]

It is in the interests of North American consumers for the company to maximise it's revenue from other regions to help fund product development. Higher price points in developing countries would make the product largely unaffordable there, reducing revenue.