And it more or less worked. You just might not like how it worked.
I think it's a different thread where I ranted about how many of those balancing factors have been stripped away.
But, early D&D, Gygaxian D&D, like 0D&D, and especially 1e AD&D, where he talked about balance over and over in the DMG, had these very elaborate attempts to balance, and to re-balance the Vancian he had come up with, but apparently over-shot intended caster power.
Clearly from his writings in Sorcerer's Scroll or Strategic Review (can't remember which ATM), he'd been worried magic would be
too weak or low impact or whatever so he chose the "relatively short spoken spell" of Vance (and Finnish Mythology? IDK?)
Magic was very much not too weak, and in AD&D the limitations were harsh, indeed, trying to reign it in, even as it ended up with 9 levels of spells... IMHO, reading those spells, it seems like after 5th level, EGG had painted himself into a corner and didn't know what to do with 'em. They got
weird. But, whatever, saves got really good at those levels, for everyone, not just for your "good" save.
It's clearly not essential, as otherwise all cooperative games would be perfectly balanced, and most RPGs aren't even close really.
Balance is not a binary quality, it's not like equality, one game can be better balanced than another.

If you create a game with two balanced options and a game with 200 options, 99% of which are non-viable, either way, both have got two worthwhile choices.
... if you squint really hard and stop before you get to high level it... no, squint harder!
Sorry, astigmatism, can't make it out.