QA testers and marketing focus groups provide data that developers, producers or marketers may or may not act on. Depending on how big the development company is, they are usually just casual respondents to ads or pulled from a list of applicants or a pool of in-house, permanent QA testers. They are roughly equivalent to lab rats in how any info gleaned from their reactions is used. In the case of game testing QA's, they are hugely useful as a way to find bugs in the vast data sphere of all the possible ways a game can be played through by a random player. Their comments on game play mechanics, menu functionality, visual style, spoken or written game content is just another data set. Not a censorship committee report. Developers are under no obligation legally or morally to follow their suggestions in any way. Maybe a developer group will agree with a QA's opinion. Maybe they will ignore it. Either response is their right as a business enterprise. Perhaps the development team realized that a tiny change could make a few buyers happier and calmer while playing their game, and that the change in no way denigrated the style or quality of all their hard work on the game. Calm. Down. UP. You continue to equate someone having a differing opinion as being the enemy, or someone changing their mind as being a victim of a perceived enemy.
ADDENDUM: Just for fun, I'm going to pretend to be a copy editor on a developer's focus team, who just left the meeting where we discussed the QA in question's opinion, along with hundreds of other details. "Hmmm. The dye names are kinda unimaginative, anyway. I shoulda seen that and had the writer try again, come to think of it, but jeeze, these 16 hour work days leave me half-blind with eyestrain. Okay, here we go -
Delirious Palpable Purple. Lunatic Ludacris Yellow. That'll do. I'm pretty sure the team will like those better when I show them at the next meeting.