I don't follow FM news but the whole video seemed like the info was straight from the developer because - unless it was mentioned elsewhere - him stating they are using Forward+ rendering (technical paper on what it is from 2012:
https://takahiroharada.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/forward_plus.pdf) isn't something you could spot just from looking unless it was a rendering solution you were using yourself because deferred or normal forward rendering was limiting you, and the video felt like it dovetailed perfectly with some of the technical comments I made in the other thread, highlighting why they were using a forward renderer in all likelihood to hit 60fps.
The confirmation of using a forward+ renderer throws in a few more pieces of information - indirectly - because using that renderer stipulates using a pre-render z-pass to calculate the depth (into the perspective projected frustum between near plane (0.0) and far plane (1.0)), which means these values(with the normal vector at each fragment/pixel) will get used for the reflection rays, and used for the shadow map comparisons tests, which sort of confirms Alex's fear that even on high-end PC the RT shadows and multi bounce reflections won't be possible - unless turn10 do multiple render path options.
In the forward+ render it tiles the framebuffer to workout light visibility to each tile (based on mix/max depth AFAIK) which would work as a 2nd optimisation path with the non-reflective RT pixels that can also use VRS.
It is the best informative video I've watched from Alex, so I expect the info to have been properly checked given that it felt like a turn 10 info to say the game will look great, but set your expectations inline with the rendering problem.