I think the objection is not that some people might find McDonalds a better value, but rather with your characterization of BWV:GFV :: McDonalds:Shulas.
I can sort of see AllStars:GFV :: McDs:Shulas. I'd say BWV:GFV is more like BOATHOUSE:Topolinos. Definitely a difference, but not quite so stark as the one you've chosen.
(Unfortunately, I can't use the restaurants at the two locations, because I'm not sure how I'd rank Flying Fish vs. say, Citricos)
Agree your analogy is more accurate. My more extreme analogy was simply for illustration to make the point that you can't say one product is a better value than the other, when they are two different products.
In fact, objectively -- If it wasn't for the limited availability at 7 months, even if you preferred BWV... it would be cheaper to buy GFV points and use them at BWV. (with the lower dues and longer contract).
So "buy at BWV due to the point chart" is really a bit of red herring. It's "stay at BWV because of the point chart... if you happen to like BWV as much as the other resorts." But not necessarily buy there. And the cheaper point chart is irrelevant to you if it's a less desirable resort. If you really want Toppolino's or Citrico's, the Boathouse isn't an equal substitute even if it's cheaper.