Isn't it better to have your rulebooks in hardback so that they dont get creased, marked and scuffed from constant use?
Given the option, I'll gladly pay and extra buck or two for a hardcover over a softcover any day. However, the content still has to be worth my money in the first place.
I was initially fine with MRQ's D&D-esque approach of a seperate player's book, GM's book and monster book.
Player's book and companion seperate? I can live with that. However, after checking out what similarly-sized hardbacks published by Mongoose have cost, the combined book would have probably been only about $34.95. So, it was either about 34.95 for a single combined decent-sized sourcebook, or 50 bucks for two seperate books, each of which is on the slim size?
I'm not so convinced the option they choose was the better one anymore.
Why play MRQ rather than RQ2/3? Because it is available.
Just because something is "available" doesn't make it a better product, and just because something has a reconizable name also doesn't make it a better product. Clearly other people have different opinions, but I consider neither of those to be factors that even remotely override the quality of a product when determining what to spend my money on.