Stuff costs money. If you think it doesn't then you are the one who should be providing proof. The correct default assumption should be that all things cost money, and all things must be paid for. There is, after all, no free lunch.
Yes, stuff costs money.
However, "It costs money" doesn't indicate HOW much it costs.
The assertion was that "A lot of resources" was spent on this content.
Also, that this content being developed was in lieu of fixing technical issues.
All we know is that it costs SOME amount of money to develop, and the people who were working on it were not working on something else (If they had something else to work on. We don't know if the people who worked on it have the ability to work on something else. Developers aren't intechangeable. You can't have an artist suddenly writing bug fix code for example)
Ergo, the assertion referencing the "Lot" of resources at the expense of bug fixes would require proof.
This is an isolated demand for rigor. Of course we don't know exactly how much each line item on the Larian budget costs. We don't NEED a detailed description of the budget to know that stuff costs money. If its not free then the budget for it represents an opportunity cost, because that money could be spent elsewhere.
