I won't be buying but not pirating either.
I'll wait til it comes to GOG. :P
I hope that comes true.

To be honest, Ubisoft is one of the worst publishers concerning games anyway so no big loss. Even their top games are typical console yarns. Farcry 2 was ruined, Ghost Recon games don't fascinate me anymore, Splinter Cell is becoming "same old same old", etc.

Since this will be involved with the new Prince of Persia game aswell, I pledged Jordan Mechner for help:
http://jordanmechner.com/forum/questions-for-jordan/stop-ubisoft/#p148

Penny Arcade addresses this silly line of thinking today in very smart fashion: http://www.penny-arcade.com/
Best quote:
In short: two wrongs don't make a right, especially when your wrong is what caused the other in the first place.

That's how wars start.

I would just like to comment on something before anyone else brings it up (for what little that will do)
The plan here http://savygamer.co.uk/2010/02/19/drm-assassination-lets-send-a-message-to-ubisoft/ and all plans similar to it are NOT the answer.
To summarize: That site (and probably many others) are suggesting buying the game, returning it, and complaining about DRM.
Why this is a REALLY bad idea:
First, this requires even more willpower than a boycott. It is one thing to expect someone to not buy something, it is another to expect them to buy it and return it.
Second, it will hurt the retailer more than Ubi. Yes, Ubi may or may not lose some cash on this (depends on how the retail process works at that level) and yes, the store will be made aware. But think about it this way: PC gaming is already "dying". If you get mass returns, are you going to refuse to stock games with DRM, or just refuse to stock PC games period?
And also, most retailers just put the same blurb that they get in the press release on the website. So if they aren't focused on PC gaming (and they aren't...), they might not even follow all the DRM fiascos and the like.
Third, the way this is organized is as an attack against Ubi (and poor Tesco). Not a boycott. You know how protesters tend to get their point across if they are semi-orderly and organized, as opposed to raving lunatics with 2x4s? Same thing here. We do NOT want to become the enemy. Because, if PC gamers aren't "the enemy" before, they will be after something like this.
So please, for the love of all that is holy, tell everyone you know to NOT do what SavyGamer is suggesting. If you are going to boycott the game, boycott it. If you want your voice to be heard, contact Ubi. But do NOT attack them. This is even worse than "Der, I'll just pirate it"

"Remember Koom Valley!"

Since I would have to register to even read that, I didn't read that.

Oh sorry, about that, the page requires an account. Dunno why. Mechner hasn't answered yet, I will post if he did.

Because being online while I play my game is SUCH an amazingly out of touch request.
Oh wait, I already am. All the time.
Do I like it? No. Mostly because it attempts to make my purchase a license or service rather than a purchase, but Steamworks already does that, SecuROM already does that, GFWL already does that. I buy those games, I crack them so I can play them in 20 years and I go about my merry way.
Supporting PC development is far more important to me than pretending I'm not going to be online all the time when I play this anyway, or pretending I won't be able to crack it if they break their promise of a patch removing the requirement.
We all know playing online is normal, we all know this will be cracked at some point down the road, be it a week or year. So what is the issue? Principle? If that is the case I care a LOT more about the principle of supporting PC development and PC gaming than I do any other.

Just to clarify, I was not advocating this position but pointing out its existence.
The fact of the matter is that some level of boycott is already happening: some who previously bought and paid for Ubisoft titles are now thinking about pirating them instead, while others have decided to neither buy nor pirate the affected titles and shun Ubisoft completely. From Ubisoft's perspective these two groups are the same because both translate into lost sales.
Ubisoft's DRM scheme was created in response to the existing piracy problem, sure, but these new pirates have come into existence as a direct result of Ubisoft's DRM, not because it wasn't there to stop them--previously they were not among the pirates.

Wow, fun to be on the other side for once.
I have no real problem with models like Steam because, as you say, we are all online anyway. Yeah, I get screwed every once in a while when the Steam servers are down, but usually offline mode kicks in (or I go play something else).
The problem with this is that you need a constant and uninterrupted connection. But extend that to realize that if you have a friend/relative running a torrent (for a linux distribution, obviously :p), that might be enough to lag things up to the point that you can't authenticate every N seconds.
Or, maybe you are at a really cool point in Splinter Cell, possibly even a cutscene, when someone turns on the microwave (or your connection gets reset because your ISP sucks). It happens to all of us every once in a while. But the game had to auto-pause (and possibly boot you, if it took too long. I am still fuzzy on those details). As we well know, most cutscenes these days can't pause (which is annoying as hell), so what happens?
And, there is not even a theoretical offline mode (that sort of works :p) for when Ubi's servers go down. And if EA didn't have the resources to handle ME2's launch, god help Ubi if they ever release an anticipated game.

Of course, this ignores who is actually being wronged. Like all DRM this system will be cracked and the pirates will actually get a game that works better than the legitimate copies; not that the pirates could really be wronged to begin with, since they don't have much of a legitimate complaint for any inconveniences associated with a game they never even bought. Instead, the only people who are wronged by this DRM system are those who actually buy the game then have a shitty experience whenever their connection hiccups. Basically one could say that Ubisoft was wronged by the pirates, and lacking a way to strike back at them decided to take out their frustrations on their legitimate customers. Not exactly a policy that ever tends to go particularly well.

THis is stupid. No more Ubisoft games for me.
I don't mind reasonable DRM (having to enter a code to install a game,) but this is ridiculous. It's a LOT worse then Steam. At lease with Steam you have an offline mode to play if you are cut off of the Internet for some reason. But not with this UBISOFT crap.
I am getting a feeling that most of the big game companies are looking for an excuse to stop making computer games altogether, and just make games for the consols.

So what you're basically saying is that ubisoft was abused as a child and is now abusing its own children from some fucked up idea that it evens the scales?