I get the difference, I am not an idiot, but my point is that MMOs prove gamers will play a game that is always online, they have no moral opposition to it.
Extreme DRM haters like to pretend their value system is the normal one but it really isn't, I bet the average joe has no real issue with this. Of course the average joe is playing this on Xbox because he doesn't care about 1080 res and AA either, but whatever, the point remains the same.
I'm not saying I like it mind you, I am saying the Internet is now a common thing, broadband is a common thing, the vast majority of PC gaming rigs are always online and MMOs have shown people will accept playing online all the time. It's simple math. I bet if Steam had statistics of how many Steam users are online all the time they play, or Xbox Live the same thing, it would be above 90%.
So yeah, these companies, who are desperately trying to stop or at least limit piracy on PC so they can still release games on it, are gonna try it. I hope it works for them because honestly something has to.
As long as they patch it out when the game hits a birthday or two.

Got a link for that?
The FAQs say it'll only be patched out if the servers go down.

Then again - you WILL be able to play singleplayer while offline... It's just that you will have to use a guest account for that.
As long as you can load saved games while offline, I think you'll be fine... In that sense - you can treat the "logged on" gameplay as an online bonus to the offline SP. The only thing different would be that LAN games will require you to be online...
Link or it didn't happen :>... If it really is like that - it sounds like a really bearable thing.
As long as we can play games like Max Payne and The Longest Journey offline forever, I don't really mind this.
Let's face it - being online is fun. Playing games with others, whether co-op or competitively (or both) is even more fun. As long as we can have dedicated servers and/or LAN games - the multiplayer will be possible as long as we have the Internet...
I think there is a place for all three models (offline, online and centralized) - it's simply a matter of what types of games land where. IMO:
1* Offline:
SP only games / games with a strong SP component / games with any SP component
2* Internet:
games with possible MP / games with strong MP component / MP only games
3* Centralized
MMOs / MP games with achievements and a centralized community
As long as exceptions to the above are rare - they might be bearable.

Link?

Uhhh, never trust Ubisoft.
They never patch their games, I know that since 2000.
And Ubisoft tends to lie, I learned that from the Kindred Blades debacle.

While it's a bit offtopic - here you go: announcement of offline SP (1:34 - 2:12) and the pseudo-LAN info, so yeah.

That is outdated. Their plans for the service have since changed, or least have appeared to change:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1068160p1.html
Also, that guy is an ass in the video. "What, you can't be online? Oh, well, uh, guest accounts, yeah! Losers, I mean seriously, you can't connect? I just want to repeat how I not only consider you liars, but pathetic troglodytes. We just want to usurp the KeSPA and kill piracy in one fell swoop. Sorry if you want to play offline, yo."

Haven't watched the video (don't care enough), but you have to admit, most of the people claiming that they can't get online probably ARE liars who just care on principle alone.
Believe it or not, but the vast majority of PC gamers (with systems that can run these games) have broadband. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions. So as annoying and terrifying as this DRM model is, they have a point there.

I don't know what news story it was from... perhaps the author took liberties with the "patch it if we take it offline" thing.
Either way, as long as I can play it in 20 years I am satisfied. Patching out the online requirement will ensure that.

Ummm... Your article doesn't say anything new. Believe me - I've been following every bit of SC2 and D3 detail with intense scrutiny and the offline SP for SC2 is still there.
Check this out - if you click on the login screen screenshot (the first one, right below the video), you can see that the "play as guest" button is still there.
He got thrown off balance. You can see that he originally wanted to tell the (presumably few) Internet-impaired people "Don't worry - we thought about you as well - we have the guest mode". He didn't expect so many people to react.
I just wanted to remind you that this was Blizzcon - a mecca for Blizzard lovers worldwide.
There was no hostility or distrust between people whatsoever (except Jay Mohr, but that guy's a douchebag with little to no affiliation to Blizzard whatsoever).
The host was merely like "Come on guys - are you serious ;) ?" in a friendly tone and being slightly convinced that they were, in fact, pulling his leg.
Care to elaborate ? Google told me it's an organization in part about playing games by Blizzard... So aren't they HELPING it by implementing new, much needed features ? How are they "usurping" anything by making their own game, FFS ? They're GIVING, not taking away.
Yes, and we all know that piracy is precious thing we should preserve at all cost...
Seriously - aren't you forgetting that fighting piracy is only bad when it hurts legitimate customers ? Otherwise - I find it a highly commendable task !
And - no - the new battle.net is more of a gain than a loss... and any blows against piracy are just a byproduct.
QFT, though I wouldn't call battle.net a DRM model - you can always fool the game into working without it. The thing is - you most likely wouldn't want to, unless you ARE a pirate. You do have the guest mode for all the offline goodness but logging in DOES make sense and has a lot of merits.

Blizzard wants total control of Korean e-sports:
http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/news/10265-blizzard-vs-kespa-the-ultimate-fight
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=101992
KeSPA made Starcraft huge in South Korea. Blizzard now wants to force KeSPA out of Starcraft II so Blizzard can control its massive e-sports following.

Can you move this to another thread. :P

It's just too bad that they have to confront each other... Blizzard could have taken care of things on the game/battle.net side, they could have dealt with all the contracts, technicalities and pro-players... everyone would be happy.
Then again - I won't be THAT much against cutting out the middleman. KeSPA exists between the players, the developer and the government. While their work seems to be a good one, I think it's something Blizzard can handle on their own...
Overall - I'm not sure. How do you feel about KeSPA ?

again i must say i want what every there smoking at ubisoft.