Isn't this the place founded by CDP's co-founder?

Yup, by Michał Kiciński, still got a stake on CDP.

Thanks for the free game.
Good to see that Linux is supported.
However, the upcoming titles list only Windows. I hope Linux support will be added later.

The Mac system requirements are wrong; it doesn't require MacOS 11 and works fine on 10.14 (and probably earlier). Also the game icon is just the default NW.js icon, which is a bit low-effort...I found a proper icon which you could copypaste if you want. Seems like a pretty neat little game.

Must be a heavy drinker...

An interesting tidbit I found while looking for an answer to Linko64's question: Project Warlock will be getting a sequel published by Retrovibe (who's also now co-publisher of the first game).

The new developers look promising. Watched the videos of all the games they offered.

Janosik 1 and 2

The gameplay and pixel art look like it's inspired from the very first Prince of Persia (but with better control I guess) and I usually critical with the pixel art but this one felt pretty appropriate with the game. Also free game is always welcome. My only critic is that the sequel look the same as the first one so there's not much visual upgrade it seems. But it might be compensated with the storyline? The opening is pretty funny tho.

BIOTA

The game is amazing at emulating the classic Gameboy visual and the rubber style animation actually look pleasing to the eyes. The pixel art look great and the gameplay look very promising.

Looter:

The pixel art is the best in this list, the gameplay look like to be the best as well. This one might be the winner. But not going to put my hope too high.

Shardpunk: Verminfall.

The pixel art look like crap and the gameplay look slow af. The only game in this list I won't put in my wishlist.

Well, what are you expecting from people who put "graphics: any" in requirements?
It's system requirements slack at it's finest. And this is just PLAIN WRONG and very anti-consumer.
Doesn't matter if it's free game. Wasting your customers time is just wrong.

Putting higher requirements is usually due to testing ability. If you don't have an earlier OS version to test (or lower system spec, etc...), then it would be much worse to state a lower requirement (which the game may not actually support properly) than a higher one (which you at least know will work and can support if someone has issues).
"It may work with less, but we're not taking responsibility or willing to support issues, since we didn't test it, so officially it's not supported" is a lot more consumer friendly than "oh, we said it will work, but seems it doesn't, tough luck".

Also, seriously, how is that "wasting your customers time"? Someone not downloading and playing game that they theoretically could have had, doesn't actually wastes their time. Complaining about excluding potential customers can be justified. But wasting time??

is it really FREE??

or is it (TELEMET-)FREE and stuffed with telemetry?

sadly these days, one has to ask such things on gog

Glad to see another freebie so soon, I just wish we could get freebies higher up on the community wishlist.

Which only reinforces my point.
They didn't even put "the least powerful computer they had on hand".
No.
They put the lowest of the low, the absolute rock bottom, "ANY".
You don't put "any" in requirements EVER.
It's like system requirements 101.
It's not "estimated", it's not "exaggerated", it's LITERALLY "not specified at all".
"Any" == UNKNOWN.
THIS is the issue I am having with this.
Plus complete lack of mention of required Linux dependencies.
And the bizzarly imprecise CPU requirements (i3 family has A LOT of different SKUs, spanning YEARS, with base frequency differening in full GHz between some, also embedded, also differences in supported instruction sets [while some games require some newer variants and pixel art game certainly could be one under specific circumstances] it's beyond imprecise, it's laughable).
Oh, and not specifying graphics API AT ALL means you are leaving your users to GUESS.
What if this game uses Vulkan? "Too bad, you will find out once you try to play"?
Or DX12?
Or OpenGL "level higher than this 10 year old GPU can support"?

Also, there's an actual discrepancy in reported disk space requirements.
Game details says "96" while sys req says "80".
So which one is it anyway?

Wasting time by making your user HAVE TO test to find out if it works on their hardware or not.
Literally making your userbase be your QA.
"Any" can mean ANYTHING, ranging from "ZX Spectrum performance levels" all the way to "quantum supercomputer's GPU cluster as we made ludicrous realtime physics simulation light reflections based on our own in-house lighting engine and we used it in this one area out of the entire game so that you will have to have this hardware or you won't beat the game".
"Any" is basically saying "worked for me, I don't care enough about YOU to test this on literally any more hardware other than mine, good luck getting this to work on your hardware".

"Any" is a legal dumpster fire.
System requirements are a basis for support tickets.
If you put wildcard there you are ASKING for both ticket load and legal trouble if someone reports you for this (hey, do you know how legally binding this is for example? For a simple low hanging fruit example, system requirements may be a reason for a refund, this is a free game, but it could very well not be, and we should not be excusing having double standards in gamedev industry "because it's free").

Let's be clear here - this is the gamedev's responsibility. The same can be seen here on their Steam page.

Also, let me mention that minimum and recommended system requirements aren't very standardized (e.g., average FPS, 1% FPS, resolution, etc.), so they are near-worthless at indicating software performance. The best way to tell is through watching video benchmarks, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone even remotely familiar with PC gaming.

The rest of your posts look like unjustified vitriol for a free game that the gamedev suggests is any lowend system. If your PC can run Windows 7 (2009), your iGPU probably has a decent chance at running the game.

What ever gave you this idea? There are offline installers for this game, so your claims are completely unsubstantiated. Or are you just looking around and picking fights? Seems like if someone robbed you in-person, you'd find a way to blame GOG. This is all irrational hatred.

get a grip

No u.
You all think I'm salty or something. But I am totally right here.
But if this wouldn't be an indie game and / or it wouldn't be free and / or not pixel graphics (ergo more GPU strain) you would all change your lines.
It's about principles. Letting sh*t slide once will only encourage this to happen again from someone else (seeing how this went unnoticed).

Yes it is ABSOLUTELY the devs' fault and that's EXACTLY what I meant the whole time.

Yes, they may be pretty worthless at times.
But they are SOME basis.
You at least get a general idea.
While with "any" you can do NOTHING.
If it would be for example "GTX 660" you could recalculate performance to another GPU generation level.

With "any" you know NOTHING.
You can only waste your time to try for yourself.
Not everybody has that luxury.
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS as a concept EXIST FOR A REASON.

I am almost wondering if this isn't some guerilla tactic for marketing purposes, to force users to "try their game" out of NECCESSITY to check if it even works as somebody didn't bother to provide the essential system requirements info.

You know what they are not worthless for?
Forming legal boundaries for official support of end client.
Yes, this is a free game, no, this does not change anything, dev is still legally responsible.
The dev just shows that they didn't bother, not even reaching for the lowest hanging fruit of some "simple" hypervisor like VirtualBox to simulate old hardware.
How does it speak about said dev's attitude in regards to customers?
Would you NOT remember this and have this in the back of your head if same developer would create another/PAID game?
Oh wait, they are:
https://www.gog.com/game/janosik_2
FOR SOME REASON system requirements there are "better" (still imprecise tho).
As if the dev is saying "I moved on to the next one thus any support for existing one ceased".

According to wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#System_requirements
So then what?
"If you can run Win 7 you can probably run this game"? REALLY?
Windows 7 can run even on thin clients.
So this line of argumentation is utterly worthless.
I have a 15 year old laptop nearby that can totally run Windows 7 no problem. Do you think it can run this game?
I wouldn't be so sure.
Not even required graphics API is specified (what if it uses for example OpenGL version from 13 years back? I WOULN'T KNOW BECAUSE THE DEV HAS DOUBLE STANDARDS and didn't bother to put even the very info they can dig out of their own code on their own without any additional testing hardware!).

What I said is 100% justified. Not bothering to properly put ANY (ha, take THIS pun!) real system requirements in there speaks volumes about dev's attitude.
It's basically saying "I won't support ANY GPU, you're on your own".
Not putting required Linux dependencies is saying "I support Linux but you have to debug the problems yourself".
Saying "i3" is saying "try it for yourself to chek if you won the lottery of 'which i3 does he mean'".