The current state of the open source tool chain is looking pretty reasonable (covering the development life-cycle with yosys/nextpnr/iverilog/verilator/etc) and a few FPGA families having been reverse engineered (the ones I find the most interesting are also the furthest along: the ice40 and ECP5) so you can buy/build open devices and use them with open tooling today. Granted, the devices to choose from are at the low end of the universe of FPGAs out there (i.e. <100k LUTs) but that's enough to do a lot of interesting things with for now and (hopefully) eventually higher-end devices will be added. That's not terribly different than the state of play re: microcontrollers and SoCs these days in the open source world.
The one part of his talk that I think is off base is replacing microcontrollers/SoCs with FPGAs in most scenarios. At any given process node, the specialized device (i.e. a processor) should be able to crush the generalized one (i.e. FPGA) every time in terms of cost, raw performance and perf/watt and it would likely take more than the current ~2-3 process node delta to overcome that. I don't look at an FPGA as being an either/or proposition: use a microcontroller/SoC for what they're good at in conjunction with an FPGA for what it's good at where the application warrants it. Sure, if you need a tiny bit of software control throw a soft core in there and save the hassle of adding a micro. But don't try to replace a hard core with a soft one just because you can.[1]
[1] Two cases where exceptions seem to be obvious and make sense: - New/experimental ISAs like RISC-V where you can't readily/affordably source CPUs in the open source world yet. - Emulators mainly because the ISA you need is typically at least effectively dead. Any devices still available aren't often good fits for what you're trying to accomplish.
I have anecdotally heard of FPGA/RTL devs leaving the field mostly because of the poor tooling etc.
In addition, lack of a standard library and bad tooling (buggy, slow compilers) makes developing simple things very difficult.
The same attributes that made me a good FPGA developer have also made me a good low-level software developer (x86 assembly doesn't hold a candle to FPGA dev in complexity), so I do that now.
PMODs are good for university/hobby projects with FPGAs, though, and I'm glad the bar is getting lower and lower. FPGAs are usually built on very high-tech processes, so the gap between an FPGA (at 28 nm) configured like an SoC and an actual microcontroller (at 90 nm) may be smaller than we think, and that may be the saving grace of FPGAs as hobbyist devices.