Eh, that's sort of what he's saying, but not really. He's more saying that the systematic stuff isn't cutting it and so companies just have to bite the bullet in buying equipment and suiting up actors if they want that level of performance, and that if he ran the department, he'd push for as efficient and cost-effective tech in this field as possible. He saw more successes in Horizon by doing facial cap than other methods, and in his experience, "AAA story-heavy games can't skimp on the animation quality with a systematic approach alone". It's promising tech, but we're not there and may never be.
The problem with mocap versus VO is that a mocap actor looks like this:
All those dots. All those cameras. All that gear strapped to them. All that warehouse space that they're working in. It's a lot of stuff to pay for, and a lot of stuff to put up with. Get a great actor, get a talented director, get a space with the right layout to allow play, and you may well get a fantastic performance; it's an extension of theater, and it's full-body performing all "captured" in one. But there's a ton that can go wrong, a ton of restrictions on what the current tools can cope with, and a ton of fine detail that goes uncaptured.
If you really want the fine detail of the face to be captured, you need a dedicated facial capture rig. There are a number of ways of doing this, and some of those methods are as comfortable as this:
...but most are as uncomfortable as this:
Either way, you have a big kit of equipment, a limit of mobility for the actor (projects like HellBlade and the Apes movies take face capture out of the chair, but you still have a camera sticking out of your face and gear strapped to you,) a requirement of space, and a lot of weird tech to play with. (BTW, you talked about having to "touch up the eyes" for the actors reading off the script... it's actually a lot more work than "touch up" if you're thinking about how the face moves when it looks, and then if the face is moving that much all the time, what's the point of fine facial capture anyway?) It's a different kind of acting, and the tech will continue to improve, but Andy Serkis keeps getting mocap jobs because he's one of the very best in the world at this emerging new acting challenge.
Now, let's look at a voice over artist at work...
Hey, that dude looks comfy! He's in the t-shirt he wore into the building, he's wearing his reading glasses, he's got a script on a music stand, he's got cans on his ears so he can hear how it's coming out, he's making wild gestures with his hands and making weird expressions with his face that may or may not have anything to do with what the character would look like once drawn, and he's doing it in a warm little wood studio. That's a guy that could rip through pages and pages of content, and the only limitation imposed on him is how long his voice holds out and how many water bottles are stocked in the back room. Sure, some animator is going to have to spend backbreaking work animating the sounds this actor is making (or some tech wizard is going to spend the same amount and more backbreaking work designing technology that can systematically re-create human expressivity,) but damn if this guy isn't free to give it his all!
...And that's why professional animator Cooper is saying that if he ran the room, he'd probably put his chips on mocap since it is paying off more than other solutions in projects he works, but even he doesn't see this route as "100% proved", and that the only real way to get the levels of quality audiences demand today is to invest time and money.