It's about the game maybe having a better outcome (for everyone) in one case than the other. Maybe it's not surprising that 'extra' information improves the game. But a point of this article (IMO) was to formally show that you could link the notion of 'extra' in physics to 'better' in game theory.
I'm not arguing that this is profound, but it's not completely trivial either.
Why couldn't it have been titled "quantum non-locality could change game theory equilibrium"...or would it have not been sensational enough?
They also show that a payoff strategy space has the same form as a test for a Bell inequality. That's the hyped 'link' but IMO it's really weak and not newsworthy in itself.
Care about this paper if you care about thinking about games in the context of assumptions about quantum information. They've arguably come up with a reasonably clean model for that and contradicted a prior result in the process.
If you don't care about that research space then you probably don't want to spend too much time pondering the philosophy of this.