I think there are two separate potential issues related to release. Firstly, you could have a game which is 'broken' in the sense of lots of people having technical problems or stumbling across crashes. IIRC, Civ4 and Civ5 releases both involved a fair bit of this, and luckily, there's been no evidence thus far that Beyond Earth is likely to suffer similar problems.
Secondly, there's presentation, bugs and balance. Given how much of the game we've seen so far, we could probably say that presentation is probably where it's meant to be. If there are any nasty surprises, it's hard to say where they'd be. In terms of bugs, there are bound to be some, but it's not like all the previews we've seen have been littered with them. You would expect a certain number of bugs as par for the course, so it's simply a matter of how significant those bugs are. Do the game mechanics actually work, or are they 'broken'? I don't think there's been much indication of brokenness in the previews we've seen, though obviously that sort of problem might only reveal itself with more intense or focused play.
Balance is much harder to determine before release. Assuming that like bugs, a certain degree of imbalance is par for the course for a game release, the real question is how 'broken' any imbalance makes the game. An overpowered station, for instance, might be annoying, but it's unlikely to ruin the game for many people. On the other hand, if one of the affinities is objectively much better than the others, that's quite a significant problem. I guess if you're not busting the play the game as soon as it's released, it makes perfect sense to wait and see what people are saying about balance. But it's probably important to remember that some complaints about imbalance are to be expected, and the real question is how significantly those imbalances impact upon the game. It'd be a shame to convince yourself not to buy the game because of relatively minor problems.