There are already such hydrophobic coats, like Ultra-Ever Dry, but they are not transparent, so not really a good option for windscreens. The challenge is currently making them transparent, and more permanent, since UV light does deteriorate the coating.
But depending on how often your car will get egged, it may be a good investment.

I'm not saying it's overpriced, that would mean they charge more than it is worth. It may very well be worth every penny. I'm saying it's beyond my budget.

A Bugatti Veyron may not be overpriced, as it's engine's technology and/or materials are very expensive or whatever. But that doesn't mean I can afford it, or even if I could, that I would want to spend that kind of money in a car.

Each and every manufacturer wants to make as safe and efficient a car as they can, as cheaply as they can. If hydrophobic glass does reach the promised stages, then there won't be any other kind of glass, so even a '69 charger will be able to get a hydrophobic windscreen, even if Dodge never intended to give it one back when they created it.

Er, JMich, I'm using the cars and tanks as analogies for games. I don't know much about them, I don't have one and I don't even like driving. Still, I'd say that comment goes beyond the comparison, doesn't it? I don't think those upgrades apply to games at all. If they do, you'll have to explain to me how, as I fail to see it.

So you can't afford The Witcher 3 in the first place and so you presumably haven't preordered it? Well... the announcement of the two expansions doesn't change that either.

I can affor the witcher 3, base game (the car). I can't afford the witcher 3 + expansion pass (tank).

Am I that hard to understand?

Games become dumber.
Players become dumber.
Companies become dumber.
Everything become dumber.

;)

Then you can decide if preordering The Witcher 3 is worth it or not. The existence of the expansion pass doesn't change that at all. Either you are against preordering in general or not. If you are then you don't preorder anything and that obviously means you won't be preordering The Witcher 3, the existence of the expansion pass changes nothing. A consistent and resasonable stance.

If you aren't against preordering in general then presumably you have some criteria you use to evalueate preorder offers, if the The Witcher 3 preorder offer passed the test a week ago, nothing has changed to make it fail that test now.

Paid expansion pack? I preordered the Witcher 3 because I heard that in the past Witcher games, when there were expansions, they were given to the players for free. I guess I'll just wait for the GOTY edition.

Firstly, virtually all the examples you have given are of old games, around the early 1990's. I believe this is a trend that can be seen as emerging in the later half the the 1990's, and is more common for certain genres than others.

For example, if you take Command and Conquer - the first game didn't have a massively game changing expansion pack - Covert Ops was just a scenario pack. In Red Alert, it wasn't until Aftermath that we got a game changing expansion, in the form of additional units. In virtually every after RTS in the C&C Franchise, every expansions got game changing additions, typically in the form of new units.

Games like Baldur's Gate had game changing expansion packs, because they included new spells and character options, as well as new content.

In the Sims, expansions added and expanded the range of gameplay. The Sims became about more than just a life simulator about going to to work and maintaining a household.

Sure, certain genres don't tend to have game changing expansion packs - FPS, Racing Games, Fighters, and so on don't really actually change that much over time. You might get new maps, but the game itself doesn't normally change any more than just basic patching - which is already considered part of DLC updates these days.

Ultimately, what is considered worthwhile DLC often differs depending upon the genre of game itself. Car packs are worthwhile in a driving game. Not so much in an FPS. RTS games focus on units, so more units and buildings are good. For an RPG, it tends to be more areas, more stories, and more character options.

Significantly changing will ALWAYS be subjective, based on a multitude of factors. For example, TW3 is about Geralt, so new character options are good, but nobody expects anything that will actually replace or fundamentally change Geralt. But in an RPG where you don't play a pre-established character, such new character options are much more likely.

As technology has grown, what is standard in an expansion pack has also grown. They have gotten more ambitious, and the bar has been raised as a result. However, the current trend is that rather than bundling everything together in an expansion pack, they are released separately over time as DLC, drip-feeding additional content.

At it's base, an expansion was just a bundling of additional content in a pack - at a time when this was pretty much your only means for getting new content. As that became less and less of an issue, the definition of an expansion pack changed. It never really stopped being just additional content, but it became so much more in many cases.

Failing to acknowledge this trend over time, just because some games 20 years ago didn't do it, is just folly. Okay, some people (myself included) might say that things "have always been" such and such a way, but let's face it - that is not the case. Home computers for video games have only been around for 40 years or so - that's hardly forever. There has been a lot of change in that time. You can look back and see those changes, and what has driven them.

$25 for a new area and 20+ hours of extra gameplay is okay for an "expansion" pack, but it does really depend a lot on what is IN those packs. We just don't know. We won't know until later on. Sure, we got less for Tales of the Sword Coast, but back then, what we did get was good value for $25. But Tales of the Sword Coast wasn't exactly Heart of Winter or Throne of Bhall, any more than Aftermath was like Firestorm or Zero Hour. It's like comparing Wolfenstein 3D and Half Life.

Right now, TW3 is having to compete with more modern RPGs. Sure, this isn't Horse Armour, but as far as we know, this isn't Bloodmoon or Hordes of the Underdark either. It's Unfinished Business and one of the Heroes Chronicles.

Official expansions NEED to go above and beyond what other modders can do.

Otherwise, what is the point?

This is the point of it all. Many though GOG was different and have now realised they are the same

Everyone wins :)

Mostly because I enjoy abusing other people's analogies ;)
So, for a gaming equivalent, are you aware of GeDoSaTo? It's the Generic Down Sampling Tool, which allows to increase the graphical quality of many games, by having them render the scenes at a much higher resolution (4K? 16K?) then downscale it to your monitor's resolution, along with other resolution shenanigans. It does mean that it needs a beast of a GPU though.
So, while Final Fantasy XIII may not have been developed with 4K resolutions in mind, you can play it in 4K, and that is an enhancement the developers didn't anticipate, but the game can make use of.
Similar to this, the 1.13 mod for JA2, which does have SirTech's blessing, even though I doubt they anticipated all that the community made. And since 1.13 is still in development, does that mean JA2 is a game one shouldn't play yet?

Or, to make a personal jab, should I play Deus Ex with high textures or without high textures, assuming nothing else is changed from the game? Or should I play it both vanilla and modded, and then play it again, and again, and again?

Yes, the existence of the expansion pass does change the situation, and I'll try to explain why. Let's assume the game is great.

Without the expansion pass, for the base game's price I'll get to experience the witcher 3, enjoy it, finish it, and move on.

With the expansion pass, for the base game's price I'll get to experience the witcher 3, enjoy it, but miss out on the additional content from the expansions. After finishing it, a couple years down the line I'll eventually get my hands on the expansions, if nothing else because GOG will give them away for free in some event. And then, in order to experience that additional content, I'll have to play through the witcher 3 again.

You see the difference now? In a way, that first playthrough is wasted time I could have used to play a different game. Even if I enjoyed the base game on its own, I want to play many games and I don't have time for them all, so I don't want to put time on the base game alone. Maybe you don't mind this, but it doesn't mean nobody can mind it or even that the difference between both situations is non-existent.

I only want to play the most complete edition, but I don't want to pay extra and I don't want to be forced to play it twice. So I'll wait until I can get the whole thing for a price I'm willing to pay. It's not rocket science.

Quoting an AMA from 2011 So no, they were thinking about paid content since The Witcher 2.