There are huge strategic elements to Total War battles.

^ That's exactly what happened. RTS's essentially "evolved" into MOBA's due to a combination of publishers wanting easier trashy monetization in PC games, the games are easier for "The Casual Audience (tm)" plus ongoing consolization that never really ended (Age of Empires 2 & Rise of Nations don't exactly play well on a game controller sitting 10ft away from the TV). That's why Microsoft killed off Ensemble Studios in the mid 2000's during their "If it doesn't play on our new XBox, we're not interested" phase in the first place...

As for RTS's already hitting peak, there's a lot to be said for that too with the proof being 22 year old AoE2 literally never leaves the Top 100 most played Steam games, month after month, year after year (and those "Definitive" figures exclude all the HD ones, plus all versions bought on MS store plus those of us still playing the original disk version with Userpatch). I wouldn't be surprised if total player count of all versions + all platforms combined was higher than Skyrim on that list overall.

That's what I've seen too especially on community sites like HeavenGames. With +15m copies sold for just AoE 1-2 on disc before Steam was even born, Steam Stats is woefully under-counting total play count on all platforms. I'm not remotely interested in AoE4 either. Despite being 21-24 years old games, Microsoft still added DRM to AoE 1-2 HD / Definitive re-releases (included Arxan, Microsoft's favoured alternative to Denuvo) so I doubt a brand new AoE4 will be any different.

Because new/different/innovative, that's what the average gamer wants! It think not; I'm going with AB2012's explanation in post 17.

I like the cinematic story-led RTS games, like those from Blizzard and Westwood/EA. They're probably expensive to make and don't sell enough to justify that.

That was a dark time in the video game industry. The sad thing is that new Microsoft are actually looking like good owners of developers - it's just a shame that they're pushing everything through Steam and the Windows Store.

This is a really interesting topic. I think another point is that single-player RTSs are heavily reliant on AI (obviously) and AI in games seems to have peaked about 15 years ago. It's been going downhill ever since. No-one wants to bother making good AI in games any more, because AI and other features that are not graphics don't sell. Another factor in the trend towards multiplayer gaming was to shift away from having to spend resources on designing good AI.

I agree with Crosmando and would classify Total War under RTT (Real-Time Tactics), along with games like Ground Control, Close Combat, Sudden Strike etc.

RTS in my book must include some elements of base building and resource gathering, even if it's just very simplified versions of them like in Act of War.

A good point here - RTSes are not console friendly, so I believe this is one of the main factors that made them fall out of grace as far as developers are concerned (with few exceptions) in an age where competitive shooters & battle royales are the focus on PC.

You are essentially right, but the same can be said about shooters if you think about it. The only true innovations have been the social and competitive aspects as of late. A good rehash of the same RTS ideas in a previously unexplored universe (on the scale of Warhammer 40K for example) with good storyline and gameplay would be, IMHO, very successful if done right.

RTS has its roots in chess and kriegsspiel cosims. The genre has been around for hundreds of years. It will change, but not go away anytmie soon. I think ultra realistic simulators with ragdoll effects might be a trend.

IMO, focus on multiplayer is exactly what killed RTS games. For an example, look no further than Dawn of War 3 and what a massive flop it was. Focusing on multiplayer is what led to classic RTS games getting mutated into MOBAs. The more a game focuses on multiplayer, the less of a character and identity it has.

I will take an RTS game with a good campaign and AI over a multiplayer focused one any day of the week. Ancestors Legacy was the most recent RTS I enjoyed because of the 9 well done campaigns, totalling 45 missions. Haven't played a minute of multiplayer.

40K has already been done - Dawn of War? It's such a good game, definitely one of my top DRM-free wants.

I know, it was just an example :). Couldn't think of anything else on the top of my mind. I should have probably phrased it better - think then maybe of an Age of Mythology meets Game of Thrones type of RTS. Done right, not like this.

Or an RTS set in Robert Sanderson's Roshar from "The Stormlight Archive" saga, where weather could be a crucial aspect in one's strategy on waging war (as it is in the books). There are plenty of potentially interesting IPs out there.

Well, I agree. When you listen to mainstream media and mainstream gamers, they only really talk about the multiplayer aspect, because they did not experience RTS when back they were great, to the mainstream RTS = mobas and esports.

I don't get why people keep comparing RTS to MOBA. Yes the first MOBA was a Warcraft 3 custom map, and yes they use the same overhead perspective and click to move (Diablo is a MOBA-like now?), I think the similarity ends there. MOBA does have buildings which produce spawns, but you don't control them. MOBA is closer to an RPG really in that you level up, you get xp and gold from killing spawns or enemy heroes, you use special abilities which need mana, and you buy equiptment at shops.

MOBA really created it's own genre, rather than cannibalizing the RTS one.

moba is not rts

This is especially weird if you're at all plugged into the bits of the tech industry that are treating AI as sexy again.

AI elsewhere: "This program identifies objects in an image and writes a Hemingway parody about them. In the future, it will drive your car."

AI in games: "I'll just treadmill against this wall some more."

And in the specific case of RTS, DeepMind actually has an AI that plays StarCraft 2.