Yes, maybe that phrase of mine was a bit impetuose, but regular Blu-Rays are made of inorganic material which, theoretically, should be more stable than the organic compounds used on CDs and DVDs.
We all can agree that 50GB is a lot of data but, with the pictures and videos taken by nowadays cameras, that can be filled in less than five years, and for sure in much less if you are a professional. It all depends on the average size of the data we are dealing with, for instance my last 15 years of work reach almost 300GB... with uncountable hours of work. On the other hand and during the same period of time, my family pictures and videos collection is arround 575GB... and it takes less than a sec to take a glimpse.
So, what do I want to say with all this? Well, first I think that Blu-Ray seems to offer more stability, which sounds great from an archival point of view. And second, capacity, 50GB per disc allows me to place in one disc the equivalent to 10 DVDs... that takes 10 times less space in my shelves. It's true that you can lose more info in one time if the disc becomes a coaster, but at the same time you could have a second copy of "the master" and you would only need two centimeters in your shelves for two jewel cases.
I tend to think, as a customer, that all goods are expensive. We all want to pay less and get the most, but 3,5€ for a Blu-Ray is affordable. I'm not a rich guy, Geography and being in Spain doesn't allow you to make big money, but memories and the efford dedicated to work is more valuable.
And now I realize that I end the post the same way I have started it, talking about the way I write, because that last paragraph sounded also a bit emotional