The requirements listed are absolutely despicably pathetic the way they underreport the very thing they are supposed to report at the moment.
For historical accuracy, this is what I'm talking about at the time of writing this post:
Windows:
"
System:
Windows 7+
Processor:
i3
Memory:
1 GB RAM
Graphics:
any
Storage:
80 MB available space
"

Linux:
"
System:
Ubuntu 18.10 & 20.04
Processor:
i3
Memory:
1 GB RAM
Storage:
80 MB available space
"

I understand you may casually dismiss the fact that someone may want to play your pixel art game on a 15 year old rig. Or a very old laptop.
But this behaviour is very anti-consumer. You are both wasting people's time as well as your own supports' one as you will have to deal with some number of tickets asking for the EXACT requirements since you blatantly failed to provide them on product page when you should have.

"i3"?
Since WHEN is the entire SERIES a denominator of performance? Core count? Even frequency denominator first number varies GREATLY between models of "i3"!
It's about as meaningless as responding to "what car do you have" question with "SUV".
FIX IT!
Also add required minimal instruction sets if there are some new ones at play.
Does your game for example use some new version of SSE?
Then add the relevant info! Don't leave your customers blindsided!
It DOESN'T matter that your game is (currently) free!
Customers will remeber (when you will eventually produce a paid game) your attitude of leaving them in the dark you know!

What do you mean "graphics: ANY"?
So like, 320 x 240 too?
How far does your definition of "any" go?
Rage 2? Did I go to far? If so, HOW SHOULD I KNOW what requirements are for NOT MY code?
Do you, like, NOT know? Did you assume that just because your game is pixel graphics you can then slack and not properly test it because "surely everyone has new enough computer"?
Are you expecting your customers to test this for you?
Grow some standards please before you make the same mistake with a paid game!
Also, something you absolutely DO know, is required graphics API and version.
You didn't even bother to specify if it's DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan or something else!
Are you expecting your customers to GUESS? And waste time?

For Linux:
Please specify all required system dependencies.
That is, of course, unless you revel in support tickets from those that coincidentially don't have some required dependency and refuse to blindly try with THOUSANDS of possible package matches from repos.

I am sorry for this angry rant, but this lenience comes from SOMEWHERE and it's just INEXCUSABLE.
This needs to be fixed. And those of the people making indie games who excercise this very behaviour need to STOP right now!
It's hurting your customers! Please understand that already!

There is this thing called virtualisation.
And yes, many studios outsource old hardware to test on real barebones.
Also, if a developer cannot afford outsourcing or virtualising very old hardware they just put in the info on the very lowest end system they could get their hands on on which the game still performed on as intended.
The mimimum requirements are also a LEGAL requirement and a basis for support tickets.
If you put a wildcard there you are GUARANTEED to face support BS sooner or later, possibly also legal trouble.
System requirements are not a joke. Do you know how many i3's has there been?
Do you know even embedded variants exist?
Do you even realise how many individual VASTLY DIFFERING SKUs there has been? Do you have ANY IDEA how much they differ in performance and supported instruction sets?
Because based on your reaction I don't think you do.
I think you have no idea about gamedesign STANDARDS if you think "estimation" can fly here. 15 year old laptops.
Also define "basic".
See?
YOU haven't defined "basic". They haven't defined "any".
Do you see the problem or do you want to keep trying to be their unofficial advocate here?
Do you really want to defend what is pretty clearly a massive underhanding of the job on developer's part? Is it embarrassing for you? It's certainly not for me.
Also, excuse me?
Are you REALLY shaming ME instead of seeing the ACTUAL PROBLEM?
There are STANDARDS in gamedev industry, and here they were not met.
I have all reasons to voice concerns here. I also have RIGHT to do it. YOU cannot tell me to "shut up" just because YOU think "it's not a problem" FOR YOU.
Justifying this slack with "oh this is pixel art game so surely most people will have good enough hardware" doesn't cut it.
As a developer you either abide to standards or you show the world that you in fact don't care about convenience of your customers like apparently in this case.
System requirements exist for a reason. Not to put jokes into it.
Oh, and by the way, any end customer hardware/software problems support is based on THE system requirements.
Which means if the developer puts "graphics: any" in them a user can very well just create a support ticket with the game failing to launch on some obscure or super dated card, example for later being the "Rage 2" and in such case the developer HAS TO support the user as the developer was the one to put said info there and it's the developer that is LEGALLY responsible for any implications of putting it there.

This has to be changed.
Blame the message, not the messanger.
I have done nothing wrong by pointing out the obvious lack of care and standards.
Many people take issue with this exact behaviour (slack with sys req, especially lack of info on Linux dependencies), I was merely one of very few who actually voiced their concerns publicly.
There's nothing wrong with it. In fact NOT voicing these concerns and letting this slide allows such behaviour to spread among developers.

Since this is a free game, it is a single developer having done this as a hobby project, there is really only so much you can expect. I wouldn't expect support for instance, much less an estimation about hardware specs.

Rather than thrashing this developer you would help by providing meaningful information about your hardware, OS &etc. If you wish to be extra helpful you could also give feedback about your experience playing this game. It would certainly help to improve if only he or she knows what exactly for their next project.

I'll also tell you that you have best turn to GOG and ask if they can provide the information you seem to be missing. It should be easier for them than the developer to make a more accurate estimation about the low-end/high-end hardware specs to run it.

Have a nice day and enjoy the game, free, no time wasted trying. When it doesn't work, forget about it, move on. :-)

Yeah, NO, I'm sorry, I said it many times, and I will say this again, this line of argumentation was always an utter BS.
We cannot excuse lack of care and double standards "because it's free".
That's not a valid excuse at all.
Never was. Never will be. Yeah, I don't know, this argumentation doesn't sit with me.
As a person somewhat invovled in gamedev I am expecting "passion projects" "by a single developer" too to have some semblance of sanity in regards to what they put on a product card.
This isn't published on some private website, just a STORE.
One would expect for anyone to have more sane approach than the one presented with this game.
What is currently visible on a product card is a very half-a**ed approach - either don't put the requirements at all (which would be bad, but not as bad as putting openly misleading WILDCARDS there) - or do them right.
Doing an underhanded job such as this yells "I don't care". I'm not thrashing the dev.
I am merely asking them to do what they should do by default without anyone asking them. Unfortunatelly I can't.
My main rig is rather profoundly overpowered for this game (Ryzen 16 core, much ram, such GPU [reddit memes slipup]).
And the older computers I could test this on (possibly "too old") are currently not operational (they require some fixing of software which I don't have time for atm).
So I really cannot test for the "bottom end" myself atm.
Also, FORCING your userbase to be your "requirements QA" for any NON-EARLY-ACCESS game is in my eyes DESPICABLE and disgusting move.
It's one thing to ASK for help. But FORCING users by just blatantly putting misleading info and thus forcing them to check themselves is just plain wrong.
Sorry.
But as a dev myself I have some standards.
Unfortunatelly not everybody does. That's a good point.
I forgot that GOG *USED TO* self-test older/less-resource-exhaustive games themselves BEFORE pushing for their store availability.
I guess I could tackle this the next time I message a blue (I'm too busy atm). Yeah, that's the thing, the whole point is if requirements aren't there you have to actually waste time to download and then install and try to even find out if your rig is capable or not.
Everyone has limited time in their lives.
Requirements exist for a reason.
Putting misleading info there (such as wildcards, which is clearly a LIE considering IT hardware history) is much worse than not providing any.
It creates false ideas in end users.
Such issues just have to be tackled and this just happens to be one of many games that have sloppy execution of this.
Once again, double standards cannot be excused by "free" or "passion project".
There's nothing wrong with pointing this out. I am simply asking for some standards to be upheld and for the dev to not repeat industry mistakes.