What are your hypothetical price points for those three options?
I don't know, how about this:
-Entry: $4.99 for 3 months, $14.99 for a year
-Standard: $9.99 for 1 month, $19.99 for 3 months, $59.99 for 1 year
-Premium: $14.99 for 1 month, $39.99 for 3 months, $99.99 for 1 year
1 month trial of Premium with new consoles, 2 week trial of Premium for new users. But remember, all this I say it's just a fan wish guess.
Very likely to merge Plus and Now would be a nightmare because the deals they signed with the companies who put their games there may not cover it, and in this case they would need to sign new deals with them (something not possible for already closed companies or have licensing deals), or I assume they would need to sign again new licensing deals with the publishers to put PS1, PSP and PS Vita games on PS5 so again it would mean a ton of work and money and since it would mean little extra revenue for them probably they'd skip it for not sounding profitable.
But well, it's what I'd like to have, that I think many players would support, that would be future proof and that would help them to continue dominating MS on the game subscriptions business by offering something MS, Luna or Stadia can't offer: an insanely huge catalog that covers many generations with many highly acclaimed classic exclusives.
Sounds expensive. That will affect sales of games though I would say, so it has to be factored in the potential price of that kind of service.
When games become so easy to pick-up through services like that, many devs will have to depend on Sony or MS for a guaranteed inclusion and guaranteed pay before they can commit to make a game specially for AA games. It will be hard for games to sell when gamers have a lot of options to play.
You think inclusion within 1 year after release is the right call?
I think it would make more sense to wait more than a year, probably two matching the PC release. The key for them would be to include them in PS Now once the game already made almost all their sales after the main 3 months launch window, got extra visibility from GOTY awards a few time limited discounts and at least one price drop.
But the 1 year strategy seems to work fine with EA Play making the service appealing while not having a visible impact on new and catalog game sales. It isn't a suicide strategy like putting them there day one, and I think it's the most reasonable thing they could do to 'counter' Gamepass.
Sony already makes a fuckton of money from 3rd party games and subscriptions, and their AAA games sell better than ever. So I think they won't care if they lose a part of these late 1st party sales (which after the 1st year are only minor sales and since normally are heavily discounted they don't generate a lot of revenue), specially if as an investment helps them to dominate the game subscription business not only on console, but also in PC and mobile.
For 3rd party devs, subscription services sucks unless Sony/MS/Amazon/etc pays them upfront a fair amount of money for including it there for some time. But since these companies only include a few games every month and hundreds of games are released every month, most devs who aren't the cool kid in the block never will be included there, or at least not with a fair deal.
So for devs it's better to keep these services as something secondary for the gaming market that doesn't keep a lot of player time, and that in terms of business is something to earn some small extra revenue once the game stops selling after its complete sales life cycle.
Going back to Sony, they need to secure their leading position in this strategic market, because right now is pretty small and let's say maybe not pretty profitable, but after 10 years or so it will be a very important part of the gaming market and will start replacing a least a part of the console and PC business.