This is my favorite article on the subject of Timmy, Johnny, and Spike.As they put it, Timmy wants to experience something. That's why they play games. They want a good story with excitement and flashy spells. Or maybe they just want to spend time with friends. They're there more to have fun than to be competitive.
Johnny wants to express themself. They like to come up with unique combos or deck/book ideas. They'll place arbitrary limits on themselves for the sake of style (like a Priest who uses all demons). They'll try to make subpar cards and strategies work just to show that they can. They're all about the creativity that the game allows.
Spike wants to prove something. They're competitors who like to see how good they can be at playing and/or building a deck/book. They're playing primarily to win.
Most of us are a mix of these archetypes. Usually only one or two provide your primary motivation though. For example, I definitely try to win every time I play. It's not completely irrelevant to me. And I definitely enjoy socializing and having cool stories come out of my games. But I'm really a hard core Johnny at heart. That's my single biggest motivation. The entire joy of the game for me comes from how creative I can be within it. I made an entire book using just Unicorns, lol. If someone gave me a tournament champion book to play with, I wouldn't have anywhere near the fun using it to win as I do when I'm losing with my Unicorn book.
Tom Vassel is a Timmy, if you ever watch his reviews. That's why so many people on here disagree with him. These forums seem to be mostly populated with Spikes and Johnnys, so when he starts talking about how awesome a card Sardonyx is, we start wondering if he's even looking at the same cards we are. Or playing the same game. And that's the thing. He's NOT. He's going into it from a completely different angle. These spells are exciting and make for good stories, and that's what he's after. He doesn't care that much about how effective it is at winning. He cares how cool it is.
That's the kind of player that Gate to Hell is made for. I think it misses the mark a little bit, because even the most die hard Timmy doesn't want to completely shoot themself in the foot. "I committed suicide by opening a Gate to Hell" does not make the kind of story they want (usually). This card doesn't need to be something that everyone, or even most people, would want to run. But I do think it could have been done a little better.
The reason I bring this up is because it's important to keep in mind when designing games like this. We need to constantly come out with cards for every type of player. Which means some people are going to look at cards that weren't made for them and wonder "what's the point?" The point is that it appeals to a different type of player than yourself.
So, when evaluating Gate to Hell, it only needs to be made "good enough" to see play. We need to focus on keeping it cool and exciting. A lowered initial mana cost makes it a very useful buff that's worth having out every game. However, the high level and sbp cost means it's not really worth putting in your book JUST for the buff. Spikes will still probably avoid it. But a Timmy will see that they can use it every game for that buff, and maybe, MAYBE, they'll get the right situation to where opening it will be worth it. And that, will be awesome. That is worth including it.
Again, I'm not a Timmy though, just trying my best to think like one. This is exactly the reason why different types of play testers and view points are needed.
