Playstation Implimenting Dynamic Pricing

With hotels and flights, the excuse is that it works both ways and that customers can also get cheaper tickets if demand is low.
They are also services that have an expiration date.
Neither is the case here. This is not dynamic pricing, it's price gouging and hidden inflation.

That's not the same at all. With dynamic pricing someone else might have the same parts of a series as you and would pay a different price for the rest. Just because some algorithm would decide that one person is in the position to pay more than the other.

WAIT!!! The discount on Steam isn't the same for everyone!? Serious!?

No it doesn't, why would you even make this up?

thats not true at all
game bundles if you own part of it.
this is different by far

I steered away from Playstation because of the terrible support of their devices, moronic direction of game releases and horrible customer service

It's actually allowed in the EU but the company must inform you when they establish the price they demand from you by an automated process. So OP's screenshoted example would be illegal, as it lacks such information.

And while it's legal to charge individualized prices in the EU, if you don't agree with your data being shared/collected, they lack the foundation for establishing individualized prices. At least to a greater degree.

Any price difference on digital goods is disgrimination and should be illegal. Period.

If anything, discrimination is pricing the product same in USA and a country with significantly smaller economy. I dont want to go deep into the salary topic etc, but just by taking official average salary. USA average is 7k per month. In my country its 1.8k monthly. I earn a tad over average. Nothing substantial. Yet I pay the same for the product as you do.

In the case of Sony taking in personal earnings is going too far. But pricing it differently on regions is just fair. Especially for digital products where you dont have any tangible value to one specific licence. For example, building a car takes fixed amount of resources and money and building 100 or 10000 vehicles does not substantially change the price per unit. Which is not the case for digital products. So being priced for USA/Germany/Norway and other main markets is discriminating against markets where people earn 2, 3 or even 6 times less.

IMO with globalization the discrimination is only becoming more widespread. Even with access to technology. Cars, phones, PCs... everything is pretty much built for first world countries. For USA or Germany if you earn above average getting a new mid sized sedan for family is normal thing. Or getting a new phone, getting decent laptop. The prices and technology is built (and priced) for these markets. Yet the macbook or VW Golf costs exactly the same for you and me.. Of course, mostly you have budget choices as well, but when majority of market is building tech for countries with strong economy, someone doing the same job as you do, but living in a different country cant afford half of what you do.

Only thing which stays "fair" is real estate. I can buy a house for 200k while you probably have to spend a million in USA. But the differences where our salaries level out ends there.

PS. As someone living in a country which is slowly recovering from soviet regime and had its economy destroyed, I feel it more and more. I have recently traveled quite a lot to Germany and Finland. Two developed countries very close to me, with relatively similar culture but with stronger economies. Both countries have significantly higher salaries, and apart from real estate other costs are very similar. Fuel, technology, food at times is even cheaper and better quality. It simply is this way. The food mostly comes from same suppliers and technology is built by same companies, so obviously they cost the same. YET the economy does not level out. This is where the discrimination comes in and globalization is slowly turning our existing world structure into useless pile of steaming shit where some people are more equal then others. And I cant stress enough - the food costs the same even though our salaries tend to be 2-3 times lower. How is that fair?

If one customer is poor and the other rich why not charge the rich one more?

or the rich person pays regular, poor person pays less. Of course from business perspective getting rich to pay more will make more profit. But the concept is fine if it works other way around.

Weird reasoning. Be it "as old as trade" - should we undo other progress too because the previous non-regulation was "as old as"?

And if we embrace one form of discrimination, because it's beneficial for someone we can align with, why not do the same with some other form of discrimination? Especially as the main benefactor of your case isn't the poorer buyers but the actually rich owners, becoming even richer.