It's really the opposite, it's a form of price discrimination.
There's a theory of surplus in economics, which is the extra benefit that someone gets from a transaction above what they would have been willing to pay.
If I buy a game that I would have paid $100 for for $50, then I have a "$50" consumer surplus. One the other end, if the producer was willing to let that game sell as low as $40, then they have a producer surplus.
Profit seeking producers want to capture as much as the surplus as they can, and they do this through price discrimination. You see this in product as two things that are essentially the same but with different marketing etc.,
Price discrimination based on geography is quite effective though as well. People with lower incomes aren't as willing to pay high prices for games. Countries can be effectively segmented based on geography (whether virtually or not), and through this producers can charge a higher price to countries with high incomes (taking away the consumer surplus they would have had vs a lower global optimal price), and still get some value out of consumers in lower income countries.
So it's not that NA is subsidizing the market, so much as it is the company trying to squeeze the most of everyone. 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".