I’m not sure what you are trying to say so forgive me if I misunderstand you here.
It isn’t about someone’s narrative. That is just how it is. A business operates with the intent at making a profit. When something begins to lose them money, and a lot of it, it makes no sense for them to continue whatever it is that is losing them money. They also have no obligation to do so.
We can discuss that is not right or whatever for the consumer, but is it right to that business have to pocket massive losses just to offer things at cheaper prices in multiple countries? It seems like a lose-lose. They can try to be the nice guy and offer it, but eventually they have dilemma on their hands, unless somehow they can turn a profit enough to not have to charge someone or make the difference somewhere else. Which is possible, I guess, just never seen it (anyone else?).
You say that consumers still have have to pay for it. That’s true, in many ways, but remember. It is a business first, not your friend. It is rough, but that is just how it is. It has to look at it through that lens first. What matters to it first and foremost is profit. You, as a customer, having to pay more now without them losing much is better than them offering you a better method at reduced cost to their pockets and at a greater loss to them is a much sweeter deal. Not all companies are like this, that’s true, but most are.
Now I’m not arguing against the idea that people should have these options at all, hopefully people don’t get the wrong idea. I’m just stating why most gaming companies don’t offer it, at least for long, and why it doesn’t make sense to the companies themselves to prolong it.
I’ll answer it.
It is about money purely. Once they see it dropping, they don’t see a reason to continue it. May I ask why you think it is a political matter though? I would be curious as to the answer, if you are willing still (saw you said you’re done, so if you don’t that’s fine of course). 
I’m sensing anger here and there is no reason for it.
I’m trying to tell you that alternative payment options does have everything to do with what you are talking about. You not bringing it up doesn’t mean it doesn’t have relevance here. You just don’t seem to be getting it. When you branch out to regional pricing, you begin to offer foreign alternative payment methods for the consumers. Which, a lot of them, charge businesses to use them for. The two goes hand in hand. I even gave you a twitter discussion of Sergei (of Epic, even) discussing regional pricing having this attached to it and how branching out further would require even further alternative payment methods, which would charge them, and would have to be justified by pushing the expenses off to the customer.
I don’t know how else I can explain it to you.
See above.
???
Please go back and re-read my posts. If EA/Origin offers regional pricing, good for them (considering what they turn offer in a year and what they profit in a year, that would be very surprising but hey, I won’t doubt you (especially since Fallen Order just had a huge issue with regional pricing???)) that is besides my argument. I never said there aren’t companies out there with it (and I even just asked if anyone knew of anymore). I clearly even mentioned GOG as an example (well, fair pricing, but it operated in a similar attempt at it so you get the picture) and clearly discussed Epic currently using it (and am discussing how it clearly will not be using it for long). The problem is that most cannot turn a profit with it. And the fact that Sergei on Twitter was openly discussing pushing charges onto customers proves my point exactly.
You not getting it doesn’t mean it doesn’t cost them money. It comes down to if they can beat it with a profit.
Alright then.