Recently, i have been playing a couple of demos of games on my PS vita to see if i liked the games or not without wasting my money. I tested many games that i was skeptical on like sound shapes, escape plan and soul scarifice among others. And i actually enjoyed them but without a demo i probably would of never though of buying them at some point. My point is demos should be required for all or most games that aren't F2P on consoles and PC. It just helps decide whether you like the game enough to want to spend £10 to £40 on without spoiling anything. Obviously for games like Final Fantasy or GTA or anything story based this is difficult as something will be spoilt but for someone like me who has never played anything like Final Fantasy, why would i have even spend £8 on one of the classic games available on Playstation Store knowing i might not like it? I just like to test things out i am unsure of before i buy them and a bunch of trailers is simply not enough for me to buy a new IP from smaller developers or even a big franchise i have never expierienced. Especially as opinions on games varie massively. What do you think? 

I think "good" demos should be required, yes.

There are demos out there that convince you not to buy the game. But then just happens that the game is actually pretty cool. And you have the inverted case, where the demo may be make up'd so that you purchase the game, and then you discover it's a piece of crap.

I think the old Game Crazy slogan "Try before you buy" is something all companies should endorse. I know there shouldn't really be a need for say, Call of Duty demoes or Mario Kart demoes because people will buy those games, demo or no demo.

Demoes can serve 2 purposes: as fun as the player awaits the game's release or to entice a gamer to buy the game. So overall I think demoes should be considered for many games but there is no way they will eventually become required.
Wait a second, do you guys even remember Game Crazy? Are they even still in business? Or did Gamestop give them the boot?

Hopefully, platform holders will embrace OnLive alike approach to it - first 30 mins of game, so you can decide whether you like it or not.

I agree with Wright.

There are both good and bad demos that could steer you away from a great game, or even steer you towards an average game/experience. I think that if the game can be made into a good demo, then there should be one.

So I guess I agree with the "most games" part.

Horrible idea. How are publishers going to get people to buy bad games with that strategy?

That'll only happen if Sony forces publishers to create a demo for every game.

PS+ gives you a feature to try a number of games for up to an hour. A fine feature for games I am unsure about. For something like Metal Gear Solid, I do not need a demo since I am comfortable with the formula, and I am sure I'll be comfortable with whatever deviations Hideo Kojima implements in future titles. But there are the "?" games that come out every now and again. In those cases demos are good for me since I do not always agree with reviewers.

They would have to make the demo a proper representation of the game though. I've played horrid demos only to shun the full game, and after playing the game later I realized the demo was a poor reflection. The first inFAMOUS game had a fantastic demo. It gave me a great idea of what to expect.

Machinima made a video about this, go look that up.

Batman Arkham Asylum had a great demo.
Lots of stuff from the game in it but when you buy the full game you notice that what you've already played in the demo is actually not in the same order. The vents and doors are leading to different areas.
So instead of 45min (purely guessed) of repetition in one chunk you get several smaller pieces of repetition, that really aren't that bad anymore.