Then they did not articulate that viewpoint very well. They also completely neglected to provide any justification. I stated a claim and provided extensive detail to support it. Replying with a comment that boils down to "nope" doesn't add anything to a conversation.
Is the cost added by the journals justified by the ultimate difference in output? It ultimately depends on your goals, probably. In my opinion, a good competing system would more or less completely eschew physical copies and save that process for anyone who is willing to take on the costs associated with that. And ideally, the peer review process would be independent from publishing, since that seems to be the invaluable service that publishing companies provide.