When you buy a game for PS3, or most consoles, you have the ability to play whenever you want and eventually sell it to another individual or give it to a friend if you're tired of it or need some cash.
This differs from PC gaming, which has become predominantly linked to accounts and has not only killed the resale market, but also causes users to have an extended rental rather than true ownership of a game in many cases. Not to derail the thread and get into the rental vs ownership debate, but it does differ considerably from the console model of game ownership.
I would avoid any console games that attempt to impose this sort of requirement, not just because it kills any resale value buy also because it's of absolutely no benefit to the customer and only benefits the company. EA is already pulling this crap in most of their console games, but they frame it as 'special benefits' you only get when you register.
However, as it becomes more of the standard, you will see a shift (most likely starting with EA) where suddenly online registration is required to play online or offline and there is no longer a carrot to get you to register your game, because it has become the standard.
Personally, I want to be able to play a product when I want, not requiring online,
not reliant on a system that may not exist in 10 years. And I want something I pay $60 for to have a resale value, not drop to zero when I open the plastic. Sure, it's not a big deal today, but imagine that in 20 years, EA goes out of business, the PS3 is a 2 generation old system and your games won't function because EA registration servers died with the company. Not a likely scenario, but a possibility if you have any sort of registration required to play (and don't have the promise of a company like Steam, which has said it will allow all games to be downloaded if they bite it ... not all companies are so consumer oriented.)
Food for thought ...