So the rotary barrel is supposed to be more accurate, which I guess is just fine except for the fact that Glock pistols were already plenty accurate for pistols. Given typical pistol shooting distances, the accuracy aspect likely won't matter to most shooters as they won't actually be able to shoot well enough to notice a difference and/or won't be shooting far enough to notice a difference.
Here is an "old" Glock 17 with 365K rounds through it that is shooting better groups than the rotary barrel at the same distance. Granted, it is a 3 shot versus 5 shot group and the results are not 100% comparable, but it attests to the idea that the improvement in accuracy isn't apt to be noticed by (most) shooters.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/09/glock-17-pistol-torture-test/
The down side to the rotary barrel, according to the article, is increased wear, which Glock says they have dealt with by hardening the locking surfaces.
I am all for guns being more accurate, but I am not sure that the purported increased accuracy is significant enough to account for the increased complexity of design or other potential issues that may crop up with a new design that are previously resolved with the old design. It is sort of like the New Coke issue. Nothing was wrong with the old Coke.