The resource meta-game. Assign peasants to collect resources, build more peasants, build more farms, tech up, rinse and repeat. Timing of build orders is critical, or your opponent will outdo you in both resource gathering and tech level.

I think this kind of gameplay exists as a stand-alone game already. E.g., Cookie Clicker and their ilk (incremental games). They aren't multiplayer, but I think they could be.

That being said, I do still believe that there are fewer RTS games being made these days as compared to say 10-15 years ago.

Let's go look at some actual data (with the caveat that I don't entirely trust the accuracy of their recent data collection).

According to that page, 74 real-time strategy games were released between 1995 and 2000. Similarly, 119 games were released between 2000-2005, and 86 were released between 2005-2010. From 2010-2015, only 26 games made the list.

By that metric I would have say that the bottom fell out of the real-time strategy market. However, I'll reiterate the above caveat, especially given the lack of any games listed for 2014.

Well I'd imagine they aren't too inaccurate. Even if we say they missed 30 or so games, it's still a decrease. I'm willing to believe this data. I haven't seen very many big name releases in the past few years.

It's easier to get a larger market share by making an FPS or something similar

Arguably, there are more FPS games being released, so unless you are doing it "right", I would believe it is actually harder to get your share of the pie.

That being said, I do still believe that there are fewer RTS games being made these days as compared to say 10-15 years ago.

Funny thing is, I opened up Steam this morning, and the reel showed me three RTS in a row (all new released). Small sample, I know, but still!

I guess it depends where you draw the line too. It is a vague definition, and semi-indie studios are making RTS (are they accounted for? how many sales do they actually get?)

Indeed more FPS games means tougher success rate, but I have seen many more successful FPS games as opposed to successful RTS games recently. I'm not sure how semi indie RTS games are being made actually, and I doubt that they are accounted for.

There's only so much that an RTS game can be simplified to make it accessible. And even then I'm doubtful how many people would pick it up. EndWar was relatively simple, but it didn't do too well. I wonder if anyone has tried a Risk like approach? Take control of a country, have various armies and order the countries to construct units which you then use to invade another country? The only resource game would be the output of each country which could be spent on different units, thereby eliminating the resource (for the most part). Shattered Union was kind of like this as well.

I don't like how modern RTSs are getting rid of economy and base building. The effect of FPS on strategy games. I don't like MOBA or tower defence. If somebody made a full RTS with all the things Age of Empires II had I would play It. Iffy on 3D graphics though. 3D graphics seem to always make the buildings and units more toy-like.