Well, Blizzard is perhaps a better example. I actually don't know much about MtG these days (cf. my incorrect comment about note taking earlier in the thread); I haven't played for years and years. Old Mark Rosewater columns gave me the impression that making the game play well competitively was a top priority. This does not imply they can't also have other design goals in mind, or that they're perfect. I would be surprised if there was not extensive 2-player playtesting under tournament-esque rules today, with some consideration of how each card might affect the competitive meta-game, but I'm happy to be corrected on this point.
The situation is somewhat different there in that a "Timmy" or "Johnny" card can exist parallel to the competitive scene in a way a "swingy" or otherwise competitively undesirable card can't exist outside of all expansions, full random, Fox only, etc., but the solution here is probably to come up with a better competitive Dominion format that excludes such cards. Then everyone's happy.
Any given individual may not be satisfied, for whatever personal reasons. If you have perfect information some ultra-competitive people will hate that; if you don't some ultra-competitive people will hate that. Also non-ultra-competitive people will hate both things. You can't please everyone on every point.
I agree with this.
It's nuts to think that all Spikes want the same things, and it's nuts to think that you have go all out for Spike or Spike won't be happy.
I don't agree with this. The players I'm talking about -- let's call them "Sirlins," since you think "Spikes" is too broad -- do want mostly the same things and share a certain broad game design philosophy. For instance, when I read Awaclus posts I understand immediately the place he is coming from (though I also enjoy my casual multiplayer games, thank you very much). I've met several people in real life with basically the same gaming philosophy.
(As an aside, I would be very interested in a description of the psychology of "Spikes" who are not "Sirlins." Perhaps I would better understand the distinction you're drawing.)
It is my impression that such people are generally very detail-oriented and find any deviation from certain Platonic competitive ideals off-putting, and have played enough games that they're quick to find and call out such deviations. (The lack of a turn timer in Dominion Online is possibly one example; it's often thought that competitive chess is a better game in virtue having a time limit, and the ability to select different time limits from "blitz" to G90 or beyond. I don't want to necessarily defend this idea, but I do want to point out that a "competitive" person of the kind I'm thinking of will find the idea of unlimited turn time a little weird.)