1. Cold steel must have been common enough to justify arming a chunk of your men with weapons to stand around and get shot at. I do know that this eventually led to the development of the bayonet and early bayonet fencing was based on pike drill.

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a question in here?

2. Guns must have been terrible! Yet somehow better than a crossbow.

Guns are easier and more straightforward to produce. If a part on a gun breaks it can be easily replaced. Guns can have a generic cast and produced en masse in a proto-industrial manner. Even early muskets have magnitudes more kinetic energy and projectile speed than bows or crossbows which allow armor to be negated. Bullets are also far more reliable at killing things -- they're not like a bolt or an arrow which have to hit at a specific angle, thus aren't easily deflected. Guns also have a massive psychological factor, especially early ones -- big booms and huge smoke clouds firing in sync cause panic in enemy ranks.

Ultimately guns served an ancillary role until the 1600's when matchlocks came common and were far more reliable. At that point the ratio of pikes to musketmen was roughly 1:1. This idea that guns were invented though and became instantly overwhelmingly common is not true however. It would take over 150 years for them to be integrated and over 200 before they became the primary weapons of armies.

3. That whole thing sounds like a static immobile formation. How did it maneuver?

It wasn't intended to be highly maneuverable. It was intended to be incredibly beefy. It all but completely negated the usefulness of cavalry and made it impossible to flank effectively due to its depth and production of force on all corners. It would generally have a deep square in the center with 4 more smaller squares on the corner with a higher concentration of light musketeers.

      □□          □□
        □□□□□□
        □□□□□□
     □□          □□

Thus it didn't matter if they were slow. It would be the artillery innovations of Gustav et. al in the 30 years' war (1618-1648) that really spelled the death of this formation -- ultimately its speed became a liability in the face of long ranged, fast moving light artillery pieces dominating the battlefield. However this formation still dominated the European landscape for over a hundred years at this point and had sufficiently left its mark.

H.W. Koch, The Rise of Modern Warfare: 1618-1815

I'm not sure what exactly it is you are asking. But perhaps you may get some information from this post I wrote some time ago.

The best, I think, is for you to read through some references as given in that post to get a more complete picture of the pike & shot era.