I think it is, when the standard has been to list requirements without it. Now it's just listed as 'upscaler', and that can mean anything - you could theoretically upscale a game from a starting resolution of 240p and say it runs fine.
I mean, I just don't know how indicative of anything it is. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, which ran like absolute trash on PC, and still does, had very reasonable PC minimum and recommended specs, and came out on last-gen machines. If we looked at those specs, and coming out on last-gen consoles, the assumption would pretty much have to be that it was going to run well on most PCs. Yet it didn't, and it doesn't.
Learn more about the minimum specs and recommended system requirements to play Star Wars Jedi: Survivor™ on your PC.
www.ea.com
The one clue we did have, though, was that the devs didn't seem at all keen to show it on PC, and didn't really show off any PC-specific features, and generally didn't seem at all invested in the PC version.
If they had been, they could certainly have eliminated the problems it still has, and wouldn't have let it launch on PC in the sorry state it did. Whereas, as you noted, the Outlaw devs have shown entire PC-specific videos, listing PC-specific features and so on. Now, they could do that, and launch a game with terrible performance on PC, but I do feel like the backlash would be... significant... if they did that.