I own PS+ as well. I have had PS+ since the PS3. I have a PSP, PS Vita, 2 PS3 and a PS4.  Just because I own the service does not mean I turn a blind eye to anything Sony does.  I chose to purchase and keep my PS+ sub because I own so many Sony devices and the service is great for that reason for me.  Just because I own PS+ does not mean every decision Sony makes increase the service worth.  Sony added MP online behind the pay wall because they got very little subs compared to MS during the PS3 era.  They did not add any new features or increase the worth of PS+ by adding MP they just did it because it was a money move and it did exactly what they were after.  My problem is that if Sony continue to make money moves because they have the console market share then we as consumers lose.  Right now its MS that is making all the value moves and Sony sitting on their marketshare looking for more ways to increase their profits without benifiting the consumer.  What I see is that as long as you and Don are so happy with the status quo you pretty much will let this continue for as long as Sony sees profit in it.

There seems to be this perception that if you have any issue with Sony you do not own their product and services.  This is totally incorrect way to think.  I enjoy Sony products and their services but I am not a fanboy.  I am not a fan of any corporation and they continue to get my money not because I have some misguided loyalalty to them but instead they continue to seek my dollars by doing things that I feel deserve my money.  For some reason you and Don believe I am attacking PS+ as a service which I am not, I am attacking adding MP online to PS+ as a money move without any added benefit which could lead to more such moves.

Or maybe you need to read the link instead of telling me what someone said.  Here is a quote from the link.  Its evident that the developer stated their MP is Peer to Peer not the person writing the article.  Also host migration is not done using dedicated server or even a client/ server setup, host migration is only done in a p 2p environment.  Just because someone says something do you just believe it or do you check your info.  Here is a link you might want to read so that you do not follow someone else opinion on something they are not sure about the technology.  This will also give you more of a clue about p2p MP if you take the time to read everything.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc217053.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396

Here is the link from the article he posted.  As you can see the developer says they are using p2p.

Impressed by the multiplayer in Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End? You’ll need to deal with the fact that it doesn’t have dedicated servers. This was confirmed by lead multiplayer designer Robert Cogburn after the reveal at Sony’s Paris Games Week show.

“We’ll still have a host, it’s still peer-to-peer.”

I own PS+ as well. I have had PS+ since the PS3. I have a PSP, PS Vita, 2 PS3 and a PS4.  Just because I own the service does not mean I turn a blind eye to anything Sony does.  I chose to purchase and keep my PS+ sub because I own so many Sony devices and the service is great for that reason for me.  Just because I own PS+ does not mean every decision Sony makes increase the service worth.  Sony added MP online behind the pay wall because they got very little subs compared to MS during the PS3 era.  They did not add any new features or increase the worth of PS+ by adding MP they just did it because it was a money move and it did exactly what they were after.  My problem is that if Sony continue to make money moves because they have the console market share then we as consumers lose.  Right now its MS that is making all the value moves and Sony sitting on their marketshare looking for more ways to increase their profits without benifiting the consumer.  What I see is that as long as you and Don are so happy with the status quo you pretty much will let this continue for as long as Sony sees profit in it.

There seems to be this perception that if you have any issue with Sony you do not own their product and services.  This is totally incorrect way to think.  I enjoy Sony products and their services but I am not a fanboy.  I am not a fan of any corporation and they continue to get my money not because I have some misguided loyalalty to them but instead they continue to seek my dollars by doing things that I feel deserve my money.  For some reason you and Don believe I am attacking PS+ as a service which I am not, I am attacking adding MP online to PS+ as a money move without any added benefit which could lead to more such moves.

Are you indicating that people that have no problem with PS+ moving MP to behind the paywall is a fanboy? Because it isn't the first time you say it and you even accused me of being paid by Sony.

Please enlighten me how host migration is done if there is nothing dependent on servers.

What I am asking is can you find anything Sony has done with MP online that justify putting it behind the pay wall.  I have repeately asked this question and you have not had one answer to justify it. To be honest, I really do not care if you accept the move or not.  My problem all along was acting as if this was a great move for consumers.  It was a great move for Sony so maybe we can agree with that.

There you go, I posted that link for you the first time, I guess you totally ignored it.  Seems to me you pretty much ignore anything that goes against your opinion. 

And where there does it say that it's totally independent of the Live network?

"Host migration enables a set of peer-to-peer clients to elect a new host peer to replace an existing host peer that either drops from the game session, cannot be reached, or is otherwise unavailable. A host peer could become unavailable due to lost connectivity, game session disconnect, or termination.

Host migration is not performed in game sessions that are operating in client/server mode. Only peer-to-peer game sessions may perform host migration."

The last line says it all.  In other words there cannot be a dedicate server performing host migration using peer to peer.  If you had a dedicated server you would not need host migration because a peer would never be the host.  Other parts of the article talks about how each peer communicate with all other peers and alert when a peer drops.  Nothing in that setup requires any other network outside of each peer and their communication with each other.