Yeah, I probably would return it--not even for the cash, but on principle. The game's gotten better but I did not appreciate the 7+ months of disappointment it took to get to this point.
This is my feeling.
I haven't touched the game since December and probably wont for the near future, if ever. I have a overall feeling that I wasted my money.
When I bought Civ5. I expected to have the same enjoyment I had had from Civ4. Thus far, I have not had that enjoyment, and have felt largely cheated by the way the game was released, and subsequently the way DLCs are pushed at the consumer.
On these forums, the DLCs have been described as the engine that funds future patches....am I the only one that sees a problem that we have to pay a company to fix the game that they released in an incomplete format?
I dont believe as a consumer it is beyond reasonable expectations to purchasing something and have it be enjoyable at the point of purchase, not having to wait 6/7+ months to an acceptable version of the game.
I dont hold any unfavorable views at the developers for the new vision they had for the game. Civ5 will never be Civ4 with better graphics. Its a new game, but the game should not have been released in a "incomplete" format. To me thats a bad buisness decision. Pair that with the intense hype that created inappropriate expectations.
Civ5 may get "fixed" to a point where I would be able to convince myself to play it again. However, I have moved on to another game that was released without flaws, has free DLC, and an equally energetic fanbase to discuss the game with. One that had a working multiplayer option out of the box.
I will probably got back to the civilization series, but not until long after the expansions or civ6's release date, to the point where the general consenses has an enjoyable feel from the game. At that point, I think the risk of wasting my money will be minimal.