Analyzing the Decline of the RTS Genre
Breaking down the decline of the RTS genre, underscoring the disruptive potential of strategic differentiation.
The MOBA Revolution
The 1990s marked the birth of the 3D first-person shooter genre, featuring iconic titles like Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. Beyond shooters, sport games and role-playing games, the 90s also represented the golden age for the real-time strategy (RTS) genre, introducing timeless classics such as Age of Empires, Command & Conquer and Blizzard Entertainment’s StarCraft and Warcraft series.
Despite major industry growth, however, the RTS genre—unlike the other aforementioned categories—mysteriously declined, and currently holds nowhere near the market share it previously commanded, with the majority of its best-selling games dating back to the late 90s and early 2000s.
This enigmatic downturn coincided with the rise of MOBA, a genre which originated from a player-made custom game called Defense of the Ancients (better known today as Dota), built ironically using Blizzard’s own development kit for one of their most popular RTS games, Warcraft III.
The rise of the MOBA genre is a fascinating story on its own, as Dota’s rapid success quickly overtook Warcraft’s servers, which—after various corporate legal disputes and missed opportunities on Blizzard’s behalf—ultimately paved the way for Valve’s Dota 2 and Riot Games’ ever popular League of Legends.
Nevertheless, from a market perspective, it’s important to understand why Dota (and the entire MOBA genre) proved to be successful in the first place.
The much anticipated StarCraft II (2010) proved successful from initial sales numbers, although its lifespan seems short-lived for a live service game.In comparison, MOBA games share many qualities that popularized the RTS genre: strategic depth, creative thinking, and fast-paced decision making, to name a few. Both categories also thrive on competition, with many players driven by the desire to win. And although teamwork became a staple for the MOBA genre, it also flourished in various RTS games, like the aforementioned Warcraft—which cultivated a vibrant community. Therefore, we can argue that a more fundamental differentiator lies at the heart of the genre’s decline.
You see, to compete in RTS—unlike in other genres—players must multitask extensively for prolonged periods of time, often managing an economy and an army simultaneously. This requires an exceptional level of micromanagement, measured in-game as actions per minute (APM). Furthermore, this demand for rapid, precise inputs tends to intensify as matches progress and as players climb the rankings, facing increasingly skilled competition.
StarCraft professionals, for example, typically average an incredible APM of 400 to 500+. Equivalent to about seven inputs per second. For the vast majority of players, this is completely unattainable, and striving for a similar performance can quickly become a source of frustration.
Accessibility as a Catalyst for Change
Dota, whether intentionally or not, seized this opportunity by restricting control to a single unit, rather than an entire army (while still offering varying degrees of micromanagement for those seeking extra challenge). By dismantling this barrier, the MOBA genre presented a similar value proposition which was far more accessible to a broader audience—serving as a textbook example of how ‘addressing the needs of non-customers‘ can both disrupt existing markets and create entirely new ones.
The notion that MOBA games target casual audiences seems absurd today, given that the largest prize pool in esports history belongs to Dota 2’s International 2021, at $40,018,195. Yet, during the Warcraft III era, when Dota first emerged, it was often dismissed as such.
Throughout gaming history, these patterns have repeatedly shaped the industry, in which “breakthrough innovations” establish new markets. As the industry matures, however, disruptions of this magnitude become increasingly rare. Instead, experiences that tailor to niches or groups that remain largely disenfranchised become a go-to strategy.
As far as the RTS genre is concerned, eliminating the incessant demand for micromanagement could be a game changer—enabling players to focus on high-level strategic decisions and more creative aspects of gameplay instead.
Where Game Design Meets Market Strategy
Inspired by Kim & Mauborgne’s Strategy Canvas (2005), the Game Differentiation Scoreboard (GDS)™ serves as a multipurpose tool for video game analysis, reviews, and comparisons.
Grounded in research on player characteristics and behavior, GDS™ offers a comprehensive framework for evaluating value propositions across key competitive factors—such as player motivations, skill demands, and engagement barriers.
Designed to inform strategic decisions, GDS™ equips developers, critics, investors, and publishers with the tools to drive actionable insights, convey creative value, and connect game design to market potential.
Curious? Click here to find out more.