Are system requirements misleading?

[DGaming]

Now what ive really noticed is how misleading pc system requirements of a game usually are. You expect to know what you need to run the game by reading the minimum system requirements of a game and you expect to know what you need to play the game at decent settings and get 60 fps by looking at the recommended system requirements. But... ive noticed that pc system requirements are always a lot more than you need...and im talking about especially CPUs. Like for example, Fallout 4, which says needs i7-4790 as recommended cpu. And on the intel core i5-4460 with a gtx 960 it gets 50-60 fps at everything maxed out! (and lets not forget i5 4460 is not the best i5 and its not overclockable). Another example .. metal gear solid 5 the phantom pain which states that for recommended you need an i7 4790 as well...well I know that on the i5 4460 with a gtx 750ti , the game gets solid 60 fps at high/ultra settings! 

 

Do you guys agree with me? Do you think system requirements are super misleading!?(especially on the cpu side)? Also I cant really get why as well.... why would developers mislead so much with those system requirements?

 

All opinions and answers are super appreciated

[SPG]

its over compensation for "just in case" and for the fact they can't test everything

[LancerBG]

In general I think they always say you need better hardware then you actually do....I can only assume they do this to make sure that when you play the game you have a good experience and dont end up on a forum bitching and moaning that the game runs like shit. 

[Enderman]

dont even pay attention to that

there is no measure for "recommended specs"

some games run way too good on their recommended specs while other games the recommended specs give you 30fps

 

just base your knowledge off benchmarks and ignore the whole "minimum or recommended" specs crap

[DGaming]

Yeah i guess you guys are right  

[DGaming]

dont even pay attention to that

there is no measure for "recommended specs"

some games run way too good on their recommended specs while other games the recommended specs give you 30fps

 

just base your knowledge off benchmarks and ignore the whole "minimum or recommended" specs crap

 

dont even pay attention to that

there is no measure for "recommended specs"

some games run way too good on their recommended specs while other games the recommended specs give you 30fps

 

just base your knowledge off benchmarks and ignore the whole "minimum or recommended" specs crap

I know .. that is what i do ... Thats how I know the mgs5 the phantom pain runs 60 fps high/ultra settings on gtx 750ti and i5 4460 ! and that fallout 4 runs on gtx 960 with i5 4460 and 50-60 fps all maxed out ! .. benchmarks and gameplays are the truth  

[GoodBytes]

Minimum specs is defined as what is the minimum to get the program/game running successfully. Not well. We are not looking at that. Just that it won't crash.

Recommended specs is subjective. For software it can depends on the size of your project. For games, it depends on what you consider a good experience in THEIR view, and other sees recommended specs as: med range system, for med range graphics/size of project, and playable (30fps is playable, you might not like the experience, but nevertheless, playable).

 

What makes games harder to define 'recommended specs', is that ideally they want you to get the specs needed to play the game at max settings to enjoy the full art work, and the full work the developer have done to give you the beautiful/full experience, graphics wise. But too high specs, makes people shy away, thinking the game will not work with their lower specs machine, and, because of this, not buy the game. So, in the end, as Enderman mentioned, it is a mess. Everyone has a different definition, different view on what "recommended specs" are.