Okay, well first I would like to say I currently own three Blu-ray movies. I have a huge load of DVD's and the library is growing fast.

I have read every post in this thread and can agree with some and disagree. As a owner of PS3 which incorporates a Blu-ray player and a DVD upscaler. I can safely say I prefer to buy DVD's over Blu-rays. Reason being is price. Most Blu-rays out there range from $20 to $35 tops. And this means brand new. A DVD starts out $20 new, with features that can be found in Blu-rays. The only advantage Blu-ray has over DVD's is the fact is has better picture quality, sound quality and has added features like Blu-ray Live and etc. To tell you the truth I don't even use the special features let alone the ones in regular DVD's. I just watch the movie keep it in my library to watch later times.

As written above, I just see little use for me to pay $35 on a disk that has about the same things like DVD but has some significant increase features. I am actually satisfied with DVD quality. I am watching Blu-rays in 720p on a 20" HDTV. I'm not taking advantage of Blu-ray like that but it is HD. But again price quality doesn't matter to me. I look at the film and boom, all done. I'm not a graphics whore. I am currently watching Smallville Season 2 on DVD on the PS3. The PS3 plays that series good and the picture is awesome.

So yes, my opinion is that DVD's are better and will be around for awhile! But Blu-ray is taking off as seen in most stores i.e. Best Buy. The lineup is increasing but again. I prefer to go the cheaper way, instead of paying extra. Soon it will change, actually writing this I have realized that out of the three Blu-ray's I own, two of them offer digital copies for me to play in conventional DVD players and such. Now that is a awesome feature! So I guess I will begin to buy Blu-ray's if they offer a digital copy in them (DVD disk).

Price and portable use matters to me. That's the point of my post!

So people here thinks Blu-Ray will be better in the future? How can something be better if it`s not changed physical? Price doesn`t make anything better. Price changes the price.
It`s just extremely bad journalism from ign writing that dvd is better than blu-ray. The article should have said:
"If yer short on cash, dvd can be bought cheaper than blu-ray even if blu-ray have BETTER quality in sound and picture, but still if yer short on rupees, you can and may still buy dvd."
Then it would make some more sense.
Thank ye

You sound like an ex-HD DVD supporter.  The bold statement is complete non-sense.  I have close to 500 Blu-ray (and over 2000 DVD) titles and ALL discs play just fine.  I, also, own a Sony DVD player from 1997.  It doesn't play dual-layered DVDs and only see Dolby Digital audio (DTS wasn't part of the standard at that time).  NO DVD players from 1997 plays dual-layered DVDs or DTS audio.

Sound sound is "niche"?  Someone needs to tell the audio/video receiver manufacturers, that sell MILLIONS of these things a year in the US per year, that surround sound is a "niche" market.  Obviously, they aren't aware of it.  In fact, some of the audio difference on Blu-ray can be heard via halfway decent TV speakers (I've tested that theory).

Movie studios won't continue to lose profits as DVD revenue continues to take a dive year after year.  They WILL move you over to Blu-ray as they moved people over from VHS.  Blu-ray is only around $5 more than the DVD version per released movie title.  If one has an HDTV (if not you will in the future), one would have to be a cheap skate not to pay $5 more for 6x the picture information and 10x  the audio information.  Plus, it takes less space to store with the cases.

In the end, the majority of video and audio philes determine the fate of things like this for the masses.  That's why it will happen much like it happened last time.  It's already been decided.  It will only be slower due to the current recession.

...Buh?

Didn't videophiles support Betamax and audiophiles support Audio DVDs?

I've rippd all my CDs into mp3s long ago.

I guess you missed the "majority" part of that statement.  The majority of video/audio philes didn't decide on Betamax and audio DVDs.

I would say you are confusing video/audiophiles with consumers in general. MP3s were not picked as the dominant music medium by audiophiles, especially not in their original low quality incarnations.

The "average Joe" usually doesn't come in on the process on making purchases 'til AFTER the choice has already been made for them and the prices come down.   It's the way it happened for CDs over cassettes, DVDs over VHS, and it will happen for Blu-rays over DVDs.  It's the way things generally work whether you like it or not.

I don't think you understand how market dynamics work, especially if you use it to pretend that audiophiles were the ones who chose to make MP3s the successor to the CD.

Actually, I believe it's you that doesn't understand the dynamics that has taken place over 8 tracks to cassettes, cassettes to CDs, VHS to DVD, and now starting DVDs to Blu-rays.  History is on MY side and not yours.  The fact that Blu-ray has almost hit 20% of DVD's market share tells me it's going to happen in a similar fashion. 

It looks like I'll be looking back on the website people like you have created about VHS over DVD, HD DVD over Blu-ray, and DVD over Blu-ray arguments in the future.

DVD wasn't the first potential successor to VHS. Remember? LaserDisc was. It was supported by videophils too. It still crashed and burned.

Betamax was the choice of video and audiophiles for its superior sound and image quality. VHS curb-stomped it anyway because Joe Average decided it was easier to deal with VHS' tracking and non-tape-eating playerrs.

DVD Audio was the choice of audiophiles as the successor to the CD. Never got off the ground because right when it got to the point where it could have, people discovered MP3s, a decidedly inferior but much easier to use, cheaper, and smaller format.

I expect Blu-Ray will win over DVD in the future. It's inevitable at this point. If you think I'm arguing otherwise, you are missing my point spectacularly. The market shift is already happening. But if you think it's because "videophile" is necessarily synonymous with "early adopter", you are forgetting the burning corpses of every "superior" medium which Joe Average left smoldering in his wake, uncared for and largely unnoticed.