I generally agree with Jim on this one and that’s along the lines of what I was thinking. I also think that you’re right and it isn’t actually feasible. Worth noting on all this, Rosewater specifically said that the success of commander made them open to try companion. He’d floated the idea years ago and it was rejected as unfun. I think they’re learning that Commander’s appeal is more niche than the numbers of players indicate.

The introduction of planeswalkers is an imperfect example in all of this. The reaction I remember was more of a BWUH? than rage. And for years they were so low power that players had time to adjust. As I remember, the only one that saw lots of play was Garruk Wildspeaker because his ability suite was the most grokable for players at the time. And arguably the only really powerful one. The problem with recent developments has been them being equally unsure about their new ideas and but aiming too high.

The problem is the conception behind the mechanic itself. It’s a fun idea, but in practice it’s just too gimmicky. And while Commander is a spectacular format, taking elements from it and bringing them to constructed play makes some pretty wild assumptions. Specifically that everyone likes Commander and wants to port that experience to constructed games. And the gross assumption is that eternal players were going to be fine with what is, in effect, a permanent change to the game akin to when they introduced planeswalkers. And, if I recall that didn’t go too well, at least initially. A lot of people still don’t think they’re good for the game.

I’m not a fan of much of what Ikoria brought to the table, but some people seem to be loving it. I, and many others, have made no secret how I felt about WAR or either of the new Ravnica sets, M20, or Eldraine. The last set they got “right” in my book was Dominaria, which also had its share of development issues. And before that, Return to Innistrad. I think Wizards F.I.R.E. design principle is fine in theory, but in practice they seem to have confused “power” with “fun” and that’s an issue. I certainly don’t envy the folks at Wizards R&D though. I don’t know where I saw the quote, but I believe I heard someone say something akin to, “a set that has 290/295 perfectly designed by cards isn’t a successful set. It’s a collosal failure.” And that is the pressure these folks are under. I imagine they must feel like they’re walking an eggshell-covered tightrope pretty often. That said, I’d love a job creating and developing cards.

Btw
The link to the Davis video is here: https://youtu.be/cxPKQ2oJ2BY