It would not be at all surprising that something gets lost in translation with what the writer put in the article, for example, let's start with this:
Keep playing at the $1 level until you win a big hand. An $800 royal flush is perfect.
Okay, but there is no $800 Royal Flush because the Royal Flush pays 800-for-1 with a Max Bet and is a $4,000 Royal Flush. On almost all machines, playing only $1 at the $1 denomination would yield a $250 Royal Flush. There are a few rare exceptions I have encountered in which a Royal Flush pays a solid 500-FOR-1 regardless of the number of credits bet, or the occasional Spin Poker machine where one can ONLY bet one credit per line and it doesn't short the Royal...but in general, no, it's 250-FOR-1 or 800-FOR-1.
I'm not denigrating the WIRED article because it is extremely well-written and flows well, but it starts off on this procedure immediately being wrong about one of the most fundamental aspects of video poker. With that, it doesn't surprise me at all that it would be inaccurate about the finer technical points of the procedure.
I've never done it, so I don't know what's true or not true, but according to Singer's later post, you put the money in before you hit, "More Games." The article says you hit, "More Games," put the money in, hit, "More Games," again...etc.
I've also spoken to at least one other AP who does not claim to have done this play successfully, but who does claim the recipe listed in the article is wrong. I don't know if he found a machine with this glitch, tried it, and it didn't work, but that's my assumption. I don't know if he wants to be identified and I don't know if what he is saying is 100% true. Again, I have no personal experience whatsoever with this play.
But, that the article would be wrong about it? The article doesn't know what a Royal pays. Anybody ever see a $0.20 Video Poker denomination? That would pay an $800 royal.