I think he's a little too focused on the paper-publishing aspect, but that may be just his specific corner of the world, and his experience. It might have been that in his sub-field, that seemed to be the main way to make impact.

I think the point is, if you want to be successful in academia, you need to be producing something theoretical or practical that others can consume and find useful. The medium need not be papers. It could be:

-- standards

-- methodologies

-- prototypes

-- libraries of code, manuals of protocols

even more practical things:

-- convening people on a topic with authority

-- writing popular works to publicize the field

-- building a scientific facility

-- even TV shows or blog posts

You will find professors at universities who do a whole variety of these kinds of things, not just publish research papers. (and as they get more senior, they often find more interesting outlets for their work, if they're innovative)

But you have to make something that others (in the scientific or industrial or popular community) can consume. All the paper counts in the world will not help, or make you satisfied, if they're just churned out for the goal of increasing your H-index but don't actually contain something wanted by others. It usually doesn't work as an approach.

If you can't do any of these, then you are probably better off taking a normal job. The incentives of academia will not align with your talents.

Personally, for example, I found that the things I was good at publishing or sharing with others wasn't groundbreaking novel research. So I went where that was valued, and have been happier since.