Some spoilers below, FYI!
I understand initially why the fire-making challenge was introduced. It was a way to make the finale a little bit more dramatic, particularly given the longer seasons allowed for stronger alliances that made the final three a little more obvious. A semi-random challenge thrown in at the end created more tension, and more surprises.
Now that the seasons are shorter, I'm not sure why we continue having it be such a key moment for the game. Especially when juries imply the final immunity winner needs to give up their immunity and make fire in order to prove themselves.
It made sense when Chris Underwood did it first — given he was absent from most of the game, he needed a big moment to show the jury he could be a contender. But the jury implying that it was a mistake for Cassie keep her immunity, even though she had already won three individual challenges? For one, Cassie had nothing to prove, competition-wise — she had already shown she could outplay others. And if this game is also about outwitting the competition, why would anyone give up a 1/3 shot to win for a 50% chance of losing? Particularly when that loss is often up to chance — the wind blows the wrong way, and you're cut from final tribal.
Given this, at this point, there is little reward for winning the final individual immunity. And, what's more, fire-making becomes less and less interesting to watch as the seasons wear on. It's time for something new, even if that something new is going back to basics during a shorter season.
I didn't think I would be cool with the changes of the shorter seasons, but I have to admit: I kind of like the pacing of these last two seasons. I think it forces players to rely less on alliances and more on themselves, which is really what Survivor should ultimately be about.
But the players do deserve better than Applebee's.