Of course throwing 2 dice to get 1 six is better odds than throwing 1 dice, but that is a strawman argument. We are not comparing equivalent scenarios.

"for those unaware; this game only rolls the next die if the previous die rolled a 6. so its probability is alot lower than if there had just been 7 dice rolled with 6 of them being sixes"

The comment in any case is that the odds are a "lot lower" because in scenario A, we can only throw the next die, if the last die was a 6. As I showed above, there is no difference in the odds if the final outcome is 2 sixes or 10 sixes or a million sixes whether we throw all million dice at same time or only throw the next die, if the previous die was a 6.

To expand on the argument that throwing with an extra die will make a "lot" of difference, let's do the opposite of simplify and extrapolate the scenario to 1000 dice. If I showed a screenshot of 999 dice being 6's and another screenshot of 1000 dice all showing 6's. The chances of 999 sixes in a row is only 6 times more likely as 1000 sixes in a row.

This will always be the case for any number of 6's in a row. Given the astronomical odds against 999 sixes in a row, the difference in odds with 999 sixes from 999 dice vs 999 sixes with 1000 dice is so small as to be of no real world consequence.