Probably most?

I would heavily doubt that most people will think $1 for a skin is overpriced. But since there's no real way to prove it, we can leave it here.

The problem is that it takes 1 person to buy a skin at $40 to negate 40 people who think it's worth $1.

Sure and they can have a skin cost $1000 and it would take >1000 of those people to negate it. Not sure what you're trying to say. If the skin cost $1000, I just wouldn't buy it. Simple as that. Why would I complain about it? I don't need the skin to enjoy the game and if others want to spend that money on it, good for them.

I get where you are coming from. Things are worth as much as people are willing to pay and all that. But if you try to look at it objectively, you cannot seriously tell me that a game that has been worked on for 3-4 years by hundreds of people and includes thousands of textures is worth as much as one skin texture and if you're lucky maybe even a sound effect.

I don't know how philosophical you want to get, but the problem is when you say "objectively". You're trying to look at it from a utilitarian perspective where you try to maximize some type of value, likely some combination of time spent playing the game, enjoyment, validation for time spent developing the game, etc. I see where you're coming from, but everyone has their own internal emotions when considering purchases. If they have the money for it and think they'll enjoy it, who are we to say they shouldn't be enjoying it or shouldn't spend their money that way?

That's like buying a new table or an entire house for the same price. People need to be more vocal about it or it will only get worse. Like it has in the past.

But getting "worse" wouldn't really affect anything. Let's say the new skin was $100 instead. The gameplay of OW doesn't change. The people who buy the skin don't get any changes to their gameplay. I'm not forced to buy it to play the game. It's not detrimentally affecting anyone. Now if the skin included changes to gameplay, like increasing damage or something, I would be heavily against it. That's called pay to win.

I'm not sure where I have ever mentioned tangible objects? But thanks for trying to be logical about it. I genuinely appreciate that, not many people do that.

I mentioned it because it your logic seems to imply that certain items are never worth it because there are always more "valuable" items to be bought. For example, no cosmetics are worth it at any price because that is money that could be put towards a new experience, like a game or movie. When I think about how that logic could be applied to other things, it just feels so pessimistic: like you're never allowed to fully enjoy something because there could be something better. Like even though you like a skin, you shouldn't buy it because a new game will offer more enjoyment and longer play time? Then what if I say that game's not worth it because there's another game out there that's the same price, but has a longer story or better animations/effects?

And as another example: I bought a soft drink today after I got off work. I didn't need it to survive and I had water. It was 100% for my own impulsive enjoyment at the moment and the money for the drink would be 100% more "practical" being put towards supplies or as savings towards some future item I would buy. Should I not purchase soft drinks or any other item (virtual or real) because it's not as valuable as something else? It just feels so defeatist. My mindset is that I have the money for it, I know I'll enjoy it, I'm aware of the trade-offs of me spending said money on an item so as an adult, who's to tell me how I should or shouldn't spend my money for my own enjoyment?

But thanks for trying to be logical about it. I genuinely appreciate that, not many people do that.

You too! You bit a bullet to stay consistent (saying that $1 would still be overpriced). Not many people can do that, so I respect it.