It's disingenuous to assume that playtesting wasn't done, correct. Quite likely, a heavy proportion of the issues with the game were identified. Usually only off-kilter things that require atypical things in sequence or rarely occurring/hardware specific issues get past testers. It is also disingenuous to look at civ 6's state and say "well, dev companies don't fix every bug they find". No. They knew the controls were broken and that the tuning in the game was nowhere near balanced and were perfectly happy to release the game while it was still in beta, just like they did with Civ 5. I hope they don't leave the controls broken forever, like they did in civ 5. Finally, I find it very doubtful that anybody at Firaxis or 2k can make a reasonable, evidence based estimate of the hit or benefit to the bottom line of bugfix cost vs hit to sales on a bug by bug basis, or even close. How many people won't buy a DLC in a month or two because unit cycing doesn't work and the controls are bad? It's non-zero, but putting a precise number on that for estimation purposes would cost more than either fixing the controls or leaving the game broken, so they're not going to do it. They do. But they might as well not, for all the good it does. It's not like you can listen to nuanced balancing comments from high level players when it's a time struggle just to get the game out of the door in a state where sub-average players don't realize it's broken.