I think "classic" RTS is an interesting case that's not likely to return in anything like the form some of us used to like.
There are at least two audiences for traditional RTS: the ones who want an experience resembling speed chess and are focused on multiplayer, and the ones who don't care about anything more than maybe a little casual multiplayer, and mostly want the campaign.
Looking back, all the RTS games I played growing up, as the latter kind of gamer, were sort of bad at delivering what I wanted, even the greats. Teasing out the elements into their own things makes them so much better. Base-building is a better single-player experience when it's more like city-builders with objectives. Moving your little dudes around a map in service of a story is better when there's minimal or no base-building, and certainly when most maps don't revolve around both sides building bases while trying to destroy the other's. Grand strategy scratches another part of the RTS itch. Certain RPGs, another. They all shine better, doing what they do, than RTS did, however nostalgic I am for the abstract ideal of it, which, in hindsight, was never even really approached by the actual games.
Meanwhile, the RTS genre seems to have refined more and more into the multiplayer speed-chess-alike space, sometimes dropping some traditional elements of the genre in order to hyper-focus on delivering that experience, all of which makes it even less interesting to me (but I gather has made it much better for people who want that). It's not the 90s now, so you can ship a game that's almost entirely focused on online multiplayer, with little or nothing to offer for single-player, and it can still sell, so there's no need to try to tack a satisfying single-player campaign on to these.
There are at least two audiences for traditional RTS: the ones who want an experience resembling speed chess and are focused on multiplayer, and the ones who don't care about anything more than maybe a little casual multiplayer, and mostly want the campaign.
Looking back, all the RTS games I played growing up, as the latter kind of gamer, were sort of bad at delivering what I wanted, even the greats. Teasing out the elements into their own things makes them so much better. Base-building is a better single-player experience when it's more like city-builders with objectives. Moving your little dudes around a map in service of a story is better when there's minimal or no base-building, and certainly when most maps don't revolve around both sides building bases while trying to destroy the other's. Grand strategy scratches another part of the RTS itch. Certain RPGs, another. They all shine better, doing what they do, than RTS did, however nostalgic I am for the abstract ideal of it, which, in hindsight, was never even really approached by the actual games.
Meanwhile, the RTS genre seems to have refined more and more into the multiplayer speed-chess-alike space, sometimes dropping some traditional elements of the genre in order to hyper-focus on delivering that experience, all of which makes it even less interesting to me (but I gather has made it much better for people who want that). It's not the 90s now, so you can ship a game that's almost entirely focused on online multiplayer, with little or nothing to offer for single-player, and it can still sell, so there's no need to try to tack a satisfying single-player campaign on to these.