1) Silly reviews
I'm a great fan of GOG, and I want the company to succeed (given it's great USPs - I love both the DRM freedom and the optional launcher with integrations etc., although I really hope GOG work on improving the latter).
However, I noticed a problem with the review feature on the store pages of each game, and wanted to suggest GOG introduce the option to respond to reviews (so we can point out in GOG's defence when users make absurdly stupid complaints) - a Q&A section alongside reviews would be good too.
Does anyone else notice the many negative reviews people give for stuff that wasn't offered in the first place, or for things they wrongly assumed were offered when no such thing was advertised?
I just looked at two games, and I found people complaining about no Linux support when the requirements didn't list any Linux support being available (only Windows was even listed on top of the requirements list), and people claiming a game was "DRM'ed" because the online features require GOG Galaxy (in other words: "the offline version doesn't support online coop - this must be DRM").
Some of these comments even get rated "helpful" by a noteworthy number of people (like 70 out of 250).
I would like to reply to those comments to tell these people how dumb their reviews actually are. Another great example of a stupid review was a guy saying "If you want me to care about DRM-free options, you better make them Linux compatible or I'll stop using your service" - as if customers were doing the company a favour by "tolerating" the massive advantage of actually owning the game (rather than just getting a usage licence that can be revoked anytime - and besides, even if a game runs on Linux, good luck trying to play it in future once the DRM verification server is turned off).
2) Will GOG continue to exist?
It's really sad to see people being this ridiculous, given the amazing service GOG have built (I hope the company survives - it seems people don't appreciate this company enough for it to be profitable). Sure, it's not as polished/evolved as Steam is, but I still prefer to buy games from GOG (and even buy some games again as a GOG version even though I already own them on Steam, just to have a DRM-free copy). I always double check whether a game is available on GOG before wishlisting/buying elsewhere (as I always prefer GOG). I hope people help spread awareness of the option to buy even some new games DRM-free, as it seems many people aren't even aware of this.
Does anyone know whether GOG's future is certain?

1) Imo unnecessary and something that just diverts the discussion to separate places. Many games have their own section in the forums. The feature you suggested would most likely just create several new places to start 'forum discussion' that would certainly develope to a lot of off-topic chatter.

Allowing responses to reviews may may result in a chain of silly comments as well as silly reviews, especially if GOG have difficulty filtering out outdated or inaccurate reviews- or refuse to allow a user to edit their review. There are many issues with the review system which are well documented in scattered threads that rear their ugly heads once in a while, but I worry your proposition may exacerbate the issue.
I don't know for how long this practise has been in place, but GOG have taken some efforts to tackle this, outside of actually fixing the root cause, of course! On some of the reviews listed as most helpful that display outdated information, such as lacking controller support, a small note has been added by GOG staff clarifying that. I wish I could link an example, but I can't remember which store page I saw it on, sorry.

The problem with reviews is that they're not designed to please, but to raise awareness or inform.
more or less objective, depending on each person's experience.

Here are a few examples:

-I bought Cyberpunk for Windows 7, and the publisher a few months (3 or 4 months) after my purchase required Win 10 and 11 only.
Win 7 has been removed from the product page, so I should be satisfied and not critical?

-I criticize the release of a new game, without even having tried it, because in my experience this publisher doesn't update games on Gog (all its games).
It's true that on the product page there's no indication that games need to be patched, so no criticism?

-I've bought DLC that doesn't work without Galaxy, despite the fact that it says DRM FREE, and I still don't have to criticize just because of who consider Galaxy to be DRM-free.

Criticism of a game, a studio or a store is necessary, even if some of it is indeed unfair.
There's no need to control them, respond to them or delete them.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

For your first comment, you are absolutely right. People complain for stuff that wasn't even advertised in the first place (and give a low rating for that), or people writing an one-liner comment and get "helpful" by many others! Things like that have been noted by other members in the forum, as well. For your second remark, not even OUR future is certain. Every single one of us people, I mean.

What an amazing idea!
Let's not restrict senseless arguments to the forum...let's expand those to the review section, instead.

Sure - in the end, nobody will ever go there again, to read the reviews, because it will be a cluttered mess of mutual insults, but - hey: at least you could get off your chest, what you wanted to get off your chest, right!?

1.) I think the better step to take here is for GOG to enable its customers to edit their reviews, since I'm pretty sure there have also been many users who found out later on that whatever they wrote in their reviews turned out to be false but faced with the unfortunate fact that they're unable to edit what they've typed in their reviews. And as much as I appreciate the thought of you wanting to correct the reviews that are false by replying to each one of them, I still think that giving the people the ability to correct themselves first is the right option.

2.) Nope, no one knows for sure. Either way, back up all the offline installers for all the games you have on GOG in case GOG did indeed go bankrupt in the future. At least even after GOG's no longer with us, we'd still get to experience its last service by being able to still access the games offline.

Well, these "reviews" are raw opinions. And that's okay.
I never expected anyone to post a 10 page balanced examination like a game magazine.
You always have to read *all* reviews to get the big picture Yes, rest assured. I looked into the future and everything's gonna be alright.

There are many issues with the GOG review system, not being able to reply to them is not one of them.

The solution to these reviews which you call "silly" and I would instead more bluntly slide into three major categories: Incompetence, Incomprehensibility, and Incivil, should instead be struck off, discarded into a fireplace, and the user told to try again when they can actually think of something useful to say.

However! The review system on GOG does not encourage having useful things to say, being limited in a myriad of ways which are stifling to the intent of an artisan's hand to create said reviews.

As such, I will now proceed per line though your post, and posit thoughts accordingly:
1) United States Pharmacopeia ? Please, try to use English language with less inside baseball. Or did you mean, "Unique Selling Point", in which case I snort derisively, and pay a pleading glance over at Itch.io? They've got Dwarf Fortress, we've nothing of the sort.

2) See the opening body of my post. I also don't see what a Q&A or FAQ would accomplish, especally given the requirement of GOG's staff to care about some of the trollop they allow publication. Do you really expect them to replete a playthough of Kotoko's a Little Weird to provide what few questions may come to mind for anyone actually buying it with their left hand fully withdrawn from trousers?

3) Some of these complaints are valid, of which the only good reasons are legal reasons; there is nothing stopping any Dosbox compatible game from running on Linux, for example. And it is entirely possible for the private user to organize multiplayer without the involvement of a client to hold their hand.

4) 70 of 250 is a statistically small vocality, as I understand it is called.

5) You would accomplish less than nothing, as one of the major flaws of the review system is the inability to track, follow, or edit one's own review. The ability to find to them, would indeed preclude the ability to reply them. Let's take the example of a relatively unpopular title, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition. 60 reviews per page, 15 or so pages, and we're already breathing down something of an informational bottleneck: 900+ reviews.

6) The future is as certain as the perceptions of grains of sand; frankly that's buried under so many layers of sand that even when it becomes formed as stone we still have to dig it up and investigate it to understand what it even meant in retrospect. In a less metaphorical sense: Don't bother predicting.

Addendum: That text above? That places me over the limit of GOG's comically small character limit by over 500!