I think Ubisoft puts out a decent product, though I am appalled by their business practices and anti-consumer policies like forcing us all to remain constantly online with Uplay.
That said, after some long consideration here I'm not sure how to solve this problem. Let's be honest, the price of goods fluctuating heavily from one area to another based on the local economies is well known. This is why for a lot of trade you wind up having to pay "duty" or entry and exit taxes when buying goods from a nation when things are cheap, this is to prevent people from buying up cheap goods and moving them into another economy and undercutting all the prices. That sounds good on paper but economies are very sensitive and it ultimately goes to some very unpleasant places when followed through to it's logical extremes which is why it's accepted as a necessary evil. For those who haven't travelled this is what a "Duty Free" station is all about, basically it's a store on a border or a port where tourists can buy things in very small quantities for personal use at the native price, everything else you bought needing to have more money paid on it before it can leave the country.
Right now with virtual products there isn't any easy way to equalize the price, a code is a code so to speak. If you charge someone what the market can bear in one place, nothing prevents the person from selling that cheaper version of the same product to a more affluent country with higher prices, undercutting that local market, and making a product. The people in less developed nations aren't be exploited here, as much as they are exploiting holes in the system when they would rather have the money than the games. Needless to say the markets in more developed nations aren't happy about this and as they do a lot of business with the publishers, the publishers are acting on their behalf to try and control the price. Especially seeing as if all the trade winds up happening at the lower, developiong nation rates, they themselves make less profit due to the prices being set low. With virtual goods where there is effectively unlimited supply as well, the issue of value and market control is already a touchy subject.
Now, it's easy to say that Ubisoft should only charge what the lowest market on earth will bear, but at the end of the day it's likely this wouldn't make them much money especially with what they invest in their products, and it is fair for them to be a business (albeit I don't like how far they push it). What's being done as a sort of "favor" to help bring games to less fortunate neighbors by charging what they can afford isn't something that can sustain the entire business.
At the end of the day Ubisoft is in the position of either choosing to only sell games to developed, first world, nations with the richest markets, OR to punish those who seek to undercut the pricess by buying only from sources from those less developed areas. What your seeing here is similar to what happens with physical goods, if someone gets caught trying to smuggle stuff pasty duty stations especially in large quantities they are the ones that are punished, not the people providing or re-selling the goods. They generally get their stuff confiscated (and depending on what it is and the relevant laws it can get really harsh above and beyond that). This is sort of like the equivalent of say heading out to the islands and loading up a boat with a bunch of hardwood furniture and stuff and sneaking past the duty station with the intention of selling it in the US for ten or twenty times what you paid and then getting caught.
Now of course virtual products do play some havoc with this logic since you are ultimately only buying one product for personal use. However the usual logic behind the existing laws is based around physical goods and tourists needing to physically travel to the location in question. Some guy say paying $5 for a hardwood walking stick that might cost $100 in the US is no big thing, that's a souveneir for someone who travelled that doesn't really do any damage. With these kinds of virtual transactions though people can do it again and again and pretty much use it to undercut the pricing and trade control of an entire area of products.
Now, perhaps I misunderstand things, but the point I'm getting at is that I don't like Ubisoft, but I can't really see how else they could solve the problem, and they do have a legitimate gripe here, as much as I am predisposed to dislike them for their other policies. The only other alternative would be to try and use draconian methods to control where their products... taking a sneering elitist attitude about how video games are not to be sold to "undeveloped" peoples and only to their more advanced superiors... To be honest though given the themes present in some of their games I'd find it kind of darkly hilarious especially if they put it that way. Effectively taking the same attitude as a lot of their Templar bad guys... "Yes, we did make a game about the plight of the downtrodden people being victimized by the arrogant overlords of other civilizations... but you aren't enlightened enough to appreciate this message... (muttering about unenlightened savages in need of deliverance at the point of a musket)" (Delivered in the voice of the Templar Governor from "Black Flag" of course).
Probably not popular sentiments here, but it's my thoughts. I'm trying to think it through and see it from both perspectives rather than just jumping on a "bash Ubisoft" bandwagon (which is hard not to do, because nowadays I love to bash Ubisoft... it's like the Snively Whiplash of video game producers... at least EA makes an effort to disguise it some times... with Ubisoft I can just imagine a CEO twirling a mustache and cackling evilly has he tells a secretary to relay how 30FPS is more cinematic... before breaking into a musical number about how evil and greedy he is).