It's a novelty as you say, and I can see the attraction of having the physical print right there. Plus there's the performance as it snaps out like a big ticket from an old-fashioned bus conductor's machine.
But for all that, the results don't compare with an old 110 camera. With a bit of care, it's possible to get decent pictures that even stand enlargement (a bit), whereas all of the photos I've see from (all three!!!) of my son's cameras are terrible. I'm talking about picture quality here. The composition is usually quite good, but everything else isn't. He takes a huge amount of trouble over trying to get the lighting right, using flash to fill in etc. but it's like the God of Photos tosses a coin to determine whether the output is going to be OK, or a complete waste of film, or something in between. I would say that it's roughly a three way split, with a third being wildly out of focus or under/over exposed to the point where the bin is appropriate, a third being like mediocre versions of 110 film shots and a third being almost as good. And, by the way, even those shots I describe as OK appear poorly exposed in some way or other, with bland colour or foggy B&W.
Of course, none of this would be an issue if it was only a few pounds being wasted, but I reckon he's spent over a thousand quid in the last few weeks. His latest camera is
this, which is £600 in the sale and cost him more. It looks the dog's danglers, and the write-up suggests you are investing in the ultimate in tech and quality. If only what squirts out of the camera was remotely as convincing.