The point was these models are familiar, and they are tolerated, and even expected in many cases.
Theme parks are not unique. You are making the case that they are different... they are different only in that those parks have all converted to a 'all you can eat' model. The principles of why one model works vs another is no different in a theme park vs a carnival or arcade or go-kart complex. The only variation is the scale and diversity of the complex.. which helps drive the length of stay for the customer. Which again only ties to the 'value' part of the discussion.. which you can't have without talking specific prices.
In fact, if memory serves.. I think it was Knotts that went to an all inclusive ticket first.. and Disneyland followed.
If what you use to dismiss these examples held up.. the business would not lose in that situation because enough customers are not interested in repeating. But reality is, they do repeat, and the business monetizes that.
People do use pay per use.. and in many situations it's preferable. Do you pay $20 a month to get rental movies? Or do you opt out of a monthly commitment and opt to pay $1/rental at redbox? You may decide that you don't need 20 rentals a month.. so you want to pay that upfront cost. Or maybe you don't know how many you will use. Another great example of 'pay per use' over a flat up front charge working, and being successful for both customers and the operator.
The incredibly high price of the front-loaded admission causes it's own stress as well..