Completely agree with you Mikhalia,
These things are up to the individual. Some people will not be happy playing FFXIV unless it is on total maximum graphical settings in the highest resolution. THese people are going to be very unhappy at launch as even if you spend $10k on a machine, you are not going to run everything at max.
Others will want to play the game at a reasonable graphical standard on a PC they can afford. They will not miss the impressive graphical effects of shadows and water because they will be too busy playing the game and having fun.
Graphics are not the only thing that matters. I think there is a lot of scaremongering on this site put about by people who really dont know any more than anyone else but have powerful computers and want to tell us all about it.
I agree with you that graphics are not the only thing that matters, but people have different interpretations on what "reasonable graphical standard" means, as well. It's fair to say that there are the people who want to play on max and the people who are fine with less, "so long as it's reasonable". But as evidenced in the hundred or so odd posts I've replied to with spec recommendations, there are quite a few people who expect to spend as little money as possible to get a system that is ever so slightly higher than minimum, and they expect mid to high end performance.
I'm not going to quote every single one; half because it would be too spammy and half because it would take too long, but if you go and look through yourself (the sticky is a good place to start, but just skimming back the last half a dozen pages and all the "Hey, I totally ignored the fact that there's a sticky and I feel my computer needs its own thread" posts, you'll notice a lot of systems which are really low end where recommendations are made (many by me, many by other people) wherein the person requesting help combines "cheap"/"as cheap as possible"/"don't want to spend much money"/"budget of (low number)" and they want "great performance" or even "good performance". A lot of people mis-estimate where their rig is, spec-wise. Assumptions are made like "Quad cores are not that much better than dual cores" or that "You said 5770, but this 5650 is pretty close to that and is way cheaper" or "Well they said the minimum is a GeForce 9600 so if I use a 9800, that's better and I should do pretty well", etc. A lot of people who are benchmarking in the 1500-2500 range are assuming that because the description is "capable of playing the game", this means "on medium settings or better" when logically, if there's a scale from 1500-8000, it's unreasonable to expect that benchmark vs 1-10 scale, 500-1400 = 1-2, 1500-2500 = 3-6, 2600-4500 = 7-9, 4600-8000 = 10. And yet many people are interpreting it that way.
Again, if people are fine with the idea that not having the best system will mean they won't have max settings, then that's a good thing. But there's a common thread of misconception that a system that is "not the best, but still okay" should perform "on high, but maybe not max" and that a system that is "low-end" should perform on "medium or better".
All goes back to the misconceptions about what "good performance" means to people. Overestimating tends to lead to disappointment.