Honestly Satoru1 that's one of the things about a lot of the "hard core" gamers, is they are basically career whiners. What I mean by that is if a game is released that is below their specs they go "Oh they dumbed this crap down for the "casuals" and their crappy rigs!"
But if a company makes a game that actually stresses THEIR rig then it's "OMG These f-tards don't know how to make a good game!" while the OTHER-other hardcore gamers with rigs that can meet those specs easily descend upon their "kin" like a pack of laughing hyenas going "Oh hey I don't want them dumbing this down to meet your "casual gamer" rig!"
I for one am glad to see a company go "Screw the neckbeards we're going to get complaints either way, we might as well make a game as spectacular as possible and take advantage of modern machines!"
That's just the thing about Ghosts, though -- nobody would be complaining about the huge requirements if the game deserved those requirements. Instead, we have people with top end machines, people with dual GTX Titans, having awful microstutter, lag and hiccups on the menus, locked FoV to 65, capped FPS, no way to change mouse acceleration or sensitivity... and, visually, the game looks WORSE than Black Ops 2! Now, if Battlefield had those insane requirements, nobody would be surprised, but this is Call of Duty. The maps are tiny, the max player counts are anemic, and the graphics look dated.
Now, talk about a game like GalCiv III, where having a 64 bit requirement would give it new features. It's a sequel to a game we've been waiting for since ages ago. That's the kind of game that's worth 64 bit. CoD Ghosts is still the same damn game it's always been, and that's why people are so upset about its high requirements.