Are you serious? You can't be serious.
You're comparing the necessity for online in a genre wherein online is reflexively necessary against requiring online for every single game there is.
Suppose this shit doesn't stop at the PC? Suppose it gets carried over to consoles? My 360 doesn't stay hooked up because I don't have an ethernet cable thatl ong and am not willing to spring for one. Should I be excluded from playing Assassin's Creed 3, down the line, because of this?
Trying to justify this isn't just an exercise in the defense of the indefensible, it's intellectually dishonest.
There's an easy thing for you.
Every game that has been on the market for the last 10 years or so has this thing called minimal requirements on the box.
You don't meet them, don't purchase the frigging game, simple, easy....
This isn't about technical requirements, it's about digital rights management and the bizarre necessity for constant refreshing of a game's authentication.
One thing is saying "You must have htis hardware to run this game"
The other thing is saying "You have the hardware needed to run this game, but you have to let us check in on you every time you try to play the game because, well, to get nitty gritty about it, we hope to help curb used game sales this way"
These are not comparable statements. Your comparison is invalid. Try something else.