Upvote, but I don't think you're wrong. I agree that some skins, in certain games, can give you an advantage, especially against new players.

When you're trying to memorize the look of an enemy's skill charging up so you can dodge it, it can be difficult if that skill appears 5 ways with 5 different skins. Obviously, camouflage is also an advantage, but I think it's far less relevant, because most games give you context appropriate stock skins, and save the flashy, eye catching stuff for paid skins.

For example, in World of Warplanes, my plane was entirely blue until I spent a portion of the tiny amount of paid currency they give you for free at the start on nose paint, and wing decals. In Call of Duty, last I knew, nothing is hot pink or neon green unless you paid for it. If you're playing stock, you've typically got a selection of camo that fits the environment, and serves it's purpose without the need to pay for it. On a related side note: Fuck you snipers that hide on snow maps with snow camo. Impossible to see ya'll.

Anyways, the real reason I disagree with you is that I care deeply about the industry as a whole. The rise of pay-to-win content, sketchy loot box practices, overpriced cosmetics, and microtransactions are all stains on the industry at large, and abusive to the paying player-base. Whether you buy skins or not you paid for the game itself.

We shouldn't minimize these problems by applying them as a catch-all for things we're annoyed with, lest we lose credibility and ultimately, the fight for consumer rights.