I'm not sure of the context of this, but depending on context I do not find it 'wrong'. Most people are not color-blind and of those that are - there are vario

I'm not sure of the context of this, but depending on context I do not find it 'wrong'. Most people are not color-blind and of those that are - there are various forms of color-blindness! Is it fair to cater to them but not others with disabilities? Should every game be created in mind that some players may be missing fingers, hands, feet, or limbs in general? A user missing 3 fingers on their right hand might find Xbox games difficult to play. Should their disability be taken into account when designing the game? Would it be morally questionable to sell them a special controller designed for them with buttons in a different configuration? Would it be more or less moral to not create a controller at all and have them unable to play the game? What is the difference, in production value, between "color-blind mode" and "alternative color scheme"? Some games sell alternative-color outfits and many apps allow users to fully customize the color, or the color is a part of their branding and allowing change (or creating change) would hurt their brand. What is the difference between charging for "alternative outfits", "themes", or "color-blind mode"? They all take similar production values. For some users "color-blind mode" is just an alternative color scheme. So charging for it may make sense, depending on context. If you decide to cater to the color blind, do you cater to the most common form? Or all of them? Is it even possible to cater to all of them at once? How much money are you spending to cater to them? Is it morally questionable to not cater to them if it is going to lose your business money? Would it be fair to charge them to offset the loss?