I don't think people will doubt that RD make very high quality watches with movements that, as I understand, are all made in house and to Geneve Seal quality standards. In addition, RD seems to introduce a newly developed movements every year---some of which appear to be really extravagant like double tourbillons with double micro-rotors , eight-day manual wind shaped chronos and a variety of others . . . really wild stuff sometimes, just go to their website and take a look. I think what bothers many "enthusiasts" or "purists" is the design perspective that RD has adopted recently, which is to make large and ostentatious cases and dials. Also troubling have been the distribution problems that RD has had and rumors of financial issues within the company. I believe that their movement facility was bought-out by a larger group or that at least there were rumors of their being bought out . . . I'm not really sure. They have always had very well-finished movements and from what I have seen, very nice case and dial work---at least in terms of production quality, if not aesthetics.
Personally, I really like their older, classic watches from the late 90's, early 2000. Such as the Hommage and Sympahie line and some of the Much More and Golden Square models, that had more subdued dial designs. And the movements are very nice, as I stated above: well-finished, Geneve Sealed, and among the few watches that receive observatory certificate from Besancon.
So are they worth it? In terms of quality, they have some good stuff. I am not sure if RD is still considered a strong "brand", however . . .whatever that means. I am not sure that they have a very solid, dedicated following such as a lot of the big names: PP, AP, Panerai, etc, or even some of the independents like Journe. They do not have very good re-sale value, but that is probably due to the perception of the brand as mentioned above. This poor re-sale value, however, means that many great quality pieces are available on the secondary market for low prices. So if you like them . . .