* "In precise legal usage, it is the name of a crime that applies in some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market or to windfall profits."
* "The term is not in widespread use in mainstream economic theory, but it is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly that raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment."
The term gouging does not always refer to the criminal/civil (depends on jurisdiction) act of price gouging. There is a reason I said "gouged or overpay" and not just gouged because the term does have a few connotations and the overpay clarifies more of what I am getting at.
As to your second point if the company is still making money in these countries with less purchasing power at lower prices why not just use that price then? Those people would not be locked out of purchasing it then. Also not everyone in a wealthy country is wealthy or has lots of extra money. High pricing in such countries also locks those people out. This argument is basically saying someone should just pay more because they are likely to have more money, and not pay the actually value of the product or goods.
You are combining multiple things in this example such as utility, opportunity cost, economic value to person ect... The same item or product weather priced at $1 or $1,000,000 dollars on average is probably gonna to produce similar amount of utility from person to person. However, with this extreme of the example I made above there are going to be huge difference in particularly opportunity cost. The utility in your case the enjoyment derived from the game of course is going to be same regardless whatever else someone paid for the same game as well.
Now companies generally often want to charge as much as they can for a good. Ideally, for every person a company sells their goods too they would charge economic value for that particular person instead of something like market value to maximize profit. Now in a competitive market a company is unlikely to be able charge whatever they want and still remain in business, but in less competitive markets this not necessarily the case. Even if people can afford the goods at these inflated prices in less competitive markets. Exact dollar amounts aside, higher prices are going to lead higher opportunity costs for people which is not a good thing.
This is just side note you since mentioned value in your example. What is the true nature of value has been argued quite a bit throughout history. What value is partially depends on what one believes is the correct theory of value. I tend believe all items have some intrinsic value as well as a subjective value. Let's take an other example let us say iron and dirt both products of the Earth. I would say the iron would have a slightly higher intrinsic value than just dirt. This is because iron can do lots of things that can provide more numerous types of utility and that boils down to its material properties. Regardless what one feels or thinks of iron it's going to have the same material properties. However, this does not mean dirt has no value as well lets look at the subjective side of value. A farmer for instance is going to value good dirt probably more than welder that fabricates objects from iron and steel. So value between the two is subjective based off the individual. So the value of good dirt is likely to be higher for a farmer than that of a welder. However, this still does not mean dirt has no intrinsic value either based off it's properties. The properties of dirt can be used to grow things, and certain types of dirt such as clay can even be great building materials because it can be vitrified into bricks for example.
I suggest just read the first paragraph of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
Particularly these sentences:
* "In precise legal usage, it is the name of a crime that applies in some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market or to windfall profits."
* "The term is not in widespread use in mainstream economic theory, but it is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly that raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment."
The term gouging does not always refer to the criminal/civil (depends on jurisdiction) act of price gouging. There is a reason I said "gouged or overpay" and not just gouged because the term does have a few connotations and the overpay clarifies more of what I am getting at.
As to your second point if the company is still making money in these countries with less purchasing power at lower prices why not just use that price then? Those people would not be locked out of purchasing it then. Also not everyone in a wealthy country is wealthy or has lots of extra money. High pricing in such countries also locks those people out. This argument is basically saying someone should just pay more because they are likely to have more money, and not pay the actually value of the product or goods.
You are combining multiple things in this example such as utility, opportunity cost, economic value to person ect... The same item or product weather priced at $1 or $1,000,000 dollars on average is probably gonna to produce similar amount of utility from person to person. However, with this extreme of the example I made above there are going to be huge difference in particularly opportunity cost. The utility in your case the enjoyment derived from the game of course is going to be same regardless whatever else someone paid for the same game as well.
Now companies generally often want to charge as much as they can for a good. Ideally, for every person a company sells their goods too they would charge economic value for that particular person instead of something like market value to maximize profit. Now in a competitive market a company is unlikely to be able charge whatever they want and still remain in business, but in less competitive markets this not necessarily the case. Even if people can afford the goods at these inflated prices in less competitive markets. Exact dollar amounts aside, higher prices are going to lead higher opportunity costs for people which is not a good thing.
This is just side note you since mentioned value in your example. What is the true nature of value has been argued quite a bit throughout history. What value is partially depends on what one believes is the correct theory of value. I tend believe all items have some intrinsic value as well as a subjective value. Let's take an other example let us say iron and dirt both products of the Earth. I would say the iron would have a slightly higher intrinsic value than just dirt. This is because iron can do lots of things that can provide more numerous types of utility and that boils down to its material properties. Regardless what one feels or thinks of iron it's going to have the same material properties. However, this does not mean dirt has no value as well lets look at the subjective side of value. A farmer for instance is going to value good dirt probably more than welder that fabricates objects from iron and steel. So value between the two is subjective based off the individual. So the value of good dirt is likely to be higher for a farmer than that of a welder. However, this still does not mean dirt has no intrinsic value either based off it's properties. The properties of dirt can be used to grow things, and certain types of dirt such as clay can even be great building materials because it can be vitrified into bricks for example.