A response to this video: how RTS games are threatened by technology itself by Voxel.
I wrote this as I watched, sometimes pausing to write an extended portion. I've written this such that you don't have to watch the video to understand it, but it may help.

RTS is not replaced

RTS is a dead genre, true. It didn't die of old age though, it wasn't and isn't threatened by technology.
There are still RTS games that get off the ground, or maintain a small but continuous player bases. Voxel's assertion that other genres fill the niche for real time strategy is wrong. A few are mentioned; but MOBAs get the fanfare. It's wrong. The MOBA does not replace RTS; while the controls are similar to an extent, it's fundamentally a different genre.

For a parallel: RTS games didn't replace Turn Based tactics. even though 'real time' is arguably more advanced either, and there certainly isn't a 'more advanced' genre than RTS in the strategy niche.
Boomer shooters, based on the design patterns of the early FPS games, have not just not been replaced by more modern RTS games; they are experiencing a renaissance of popularity because people still want that experience, just Without the technical limitations that constrained the design of early shooters. Such constraints include the inability to jump in DOOM, or its 2.5D low res graphics. Those are not intrinsically part of that boomer shooter experience. Remember that.
(Furthermore, this guy says MOBAs have a low barrier to entry. That's just wrong; they do for RTS gamers and certain others, but not everyone; the amount of 'hidden skills' required is monumental.)

The Two Factions of RTS Design

Yes, older RTS games have a higher skill floor, and so do many attempts at new ones. The skill floor remaining particularly high has a specific reason and it's got nothing to do with what the genre is. Instead, it's got to do with who's designing it.
There were two factions inside RTS design; one saw the high skill floor as innate to the genre; especially when it came to micro. I call this the Cult of Micro.
The other faction saw micro and certain other elements of RTS games that incidentally created high-skill-floor gameplay as just that; incidental to the genre, the result of a nascent genre and the technical limitations of the time. Something that could and should be innovated past. I'll call this group the Innovators.

Obviously I agree that the innovators are right. Saying that these elements — such as micro — are intrinsic to RTS, is like saying that boomer shooters shouldn't have better graphics or the ability to jump.

An example of an Innovator game is Warzone2100; a game from 1999 that aimed to reduce micro. It had multiple mechanics that allowed players to tell their units to behave in intelligent ways; such as assigning artillery to automatically conduct fire support for a command unit. This game maintains an active player base and open source development.

RTS games have player bases that remain viable.

RTS games do experience viable player bases too.
French Developer Eugen Systems' Wargame series is one of them. It is an evolution of their earlier title, R.U.S.E.
The first Wargame European Escalation (2012) was successful enough to spawn a sequel 2 years later, Wargame AirLand Battle, which had yet another sequel a year later. While it completely lacks base building, and tech trees, it is still an RTS.
The lack of those mechanics is cogent with the game's premise; nobody is building factories on the front line of the Fulda Gap. Players build a unit list like a tabletop wargame, and deploy them with points gained at the start, and during the course of a match; representing both the initial force, and reinforcements.

Highly simplified RTS game Northgard has about 5000 average players on steam; it lacks waypoints, but has base building and more a limited scope. Total War: Warhammer 3 has the highest all time peak and active players of its trilogy. It's become more popular; though it's not a pure RTS, the meat of the gameplay is RTS; (it's the inverse of X-COM; which has a real-time overworld and turn based combat). People want RTS gameplay; and fraction again of those are willing to play these games with a few thousand other people to get it.

The 'legacy' of RTS games is mentioned in the video: turn based tactics games, and grand strategy are mentioned. But those aren't a legacy of RTS games! They've existed alongside them, and arguably predate them if we count the existence of traditional games.

So there's still a desire for these RTS, the other genres haven't replaced that desire. So why aren't they being made, why aren't they popular? Well we have to look at when RTS games peaked.

The Peak of RTS, and the downhill slope called Starcraft.

Voxel is right that Supreme Commander is the current peak of RTS games; because it was a game made by Innovators that actually got past the Cult of Micro, thanks to a lead dev with the pull to do it, and a spiritual predecessor to point to. A predecessor it did far more than merely ape. It was a game that actually leveraged new technology of the time to reduce micro, but also to deliver an unsurpassed experience; to let you control hundreds, even thousands of units on one massive battlefield in a relatively smooth manner, to construct your war machine and command it, without demanding you micromanage it. It's not perfect, not by far, but it is currently unsurpassed.

That's as far as we've got. Almost every other game is just Starcraft, with a gimmick. Starcraft is still practically seen as the gold standard of RTS games. Voxel talks about high skill floor, but Korean kids played starcraft. Which is why it go so big; it never deserved to be the gold standard, it just lucked out and received it by circumstances. It could have been another game that lucked out. But that didn't happen, it was Starcraft. That meant when it came to financing, the micro cult won.

RTS games reaching a plateau isn't about the tech. Technology can enable innovation, but it is certainly not sufficient for any innovation. Nor is it necessary for all innovation.
The design of these games is the problem, and what Voxel completely ignored.
The problem isn't that we ran out of tech, or even that we ran out of ideas for what to do with the tech. It's that we stopped actually innovating the design. Virtually every single innovative idea that exists that could or would bring RTS games back onto the market has already been done. Supreme Commander was the peak, but it wasn't everything.
Even when there is an innovative gimmick, one that helps reduce micromanagement, the rest of the game is Starcraft, or occasionally C&C. The Cult of Micro means virtually every RTS game is poisoned by Starcraft's 25 year old design before it even leaves the drawing board.

Some RTS series have gone backwards

Relic Entertainment's Dawn of War is a dead series now because it went backwards with the third installment. They gave us some great RTS games that were very popular:
The first was starcraft-like, but had enough of its own DNA, taken from the actual 40k tabletop to make it interesting and even reduce micro incidentally; such as the fact that many units are made up of squads instead of one unit. Resources are gained from territory control, no need to manage the number of resource harvesters, only your few builders.
The DoW2 uses Relic's Company of Heroes engine to do 40k, making both feel and play very similarly. This still works at actually representing different parts of what 40k is; since Space Marines suit being tough heroes even more than WW2 soldiers, yet the tabletop also has cover, which is an important part of CoH as well.

Dawn of War 3? It's Starcraft with squads, and microtransactions. Their stated goal was to take the best parts from both previous installments. But by distilling those to games to take parts from them, they actually ended up with Starcraft again, because those previous games were Starcraft with a few gimmicks. It feels like a bad attempt to make a 40k e-sport by copying Starcraft. You have Eldar, Space marines, and Orks; aka Protoss, Terran, and Zerg. Utterly violating players expectations not just of a good game, but of what the units should be based on their names! the media literacy they had built up from either previous games, or 40k itself was utterly trashed in favour of generic starcraftish design.

(Eugen's Wargame series, mentioned earlier, has no base building, instead deck design; more accessible especially for anyone with cold war literacy, or even any literacy with some war media; everyone knows you need tanks, artillery, AA guns, planes, scouts and soldiers after all; you see all these things in a WW2 movie or military fiction novel.)

But Eugen also went backwards with Act of Aggression, which is just C&C Generals with better base building but worse overall design.

RTS is stagnant, even regressive in design. The ones that manage to carve out a little niche and do well for a while combine maybe a few gimmicks; the Wargame series has the deck building meaning players can use their media literacy in a stress free, methodical manner before getting into a match. It also features the long range 'zoom out to strategic view' that was found in Supreme Commander, oh, and units need logistics. That's it. None of these reduce micro, though the strategic zoom is definitely excellent for quality of life.

Every game is Starcraft with a gimmick or two.

Virtually every RTS game iterates on Starcraft. They do not provide a new experience. They also frustrate the players. Either they either know that there are better mechanics out there, or they can feel the 25 year old game design.
No game has come along that combines the innovative gimmicks of the last 25 years into one game that could or would set the new standard for RTS games and revitalize the genre.
There's a few tired old mechanics that are trotted out regardless of if they actually suit the concept of the game or not. Even the way harvesters work in Starcraft is virtually the same as Dune 2
One or two things might change, but pretty much every "Starcraft, but..." has been done now. You can forget anything innovative like the incredible control scheme of Supreme Commander. The control scheme of most RTS games provide near identical user experience to Starcraft.
We have nowhere near reached the tech plateau for RTS games, we aren't even fully using late 2000s era tech in RTS design, let alone 2010s tech. If you're knowingly or unknowingly a Starcraft worshipping member of the Cult of Micro, then yes, there is nothing new technology can bring to the genre. But if you're not, then you're just despairing that no RTS game will implement a design that utilizes technology later than 2007.
RTS games are dead and its the developers and publisher's fault, nobody else.

Epilogue: Imagine if FPS was like this.

Imagine every single FPS game started at the design of Medal of Honor (1999), or one of those similar WW2 titles, plus better graphics. Imagine the movement, ammo mechanics, and weapon variety was similar, almost regardless of the actual theme of the game, so to a greater or lesser degree it always felt like you were playing a WW2 FPS game. Imagine if publishers didn't fund FPS games that didn't look similar enough to MoH, and professional developers were virtually indoctrinated to mimic MoH as the definition of the successful FPS game, despite the fact its design was stuck in 1999.
FPS games would also be dead.

That's not what happened of course, FPS games iterate on each other, they do so even faster now; Fortnite looked at Apex Legends and just put in Apex's mechanics; respawn beacons and the advanced, fast use, context sensitive ping wheel. Movement gets better across games; not just in movement based games; try running around in BFBC2 compared to more recent Battlefield games.
But it is what happened to RTS games.

I see Silica is mentioned at the end of the video, which I was aware of; FPS/RTS has been an idea for years. It's not new, there have been FPS games with commanders before; Battlefield 2 did it in 2005, a game that is old enough to vote. There have even been FPS games with RTS hybridization that included commander base building before; such as Nuclear Dawn, and Empires Mod. This one may lean into the RTS side a bit more, with the commander commanding bots, I hope so. But even that is not an innovation. ARMA 2 had that in its community made Warfare mode, featuring a commander, base buildings, tech research, and AI enemies. Though no doubt Silica will have better AI for its enemies than these previous games. I have a feeling the game will be in the vein of those 3 entries just mentioned; where the primary focus is the FPS, and the RTS is there to spice it up and provide more teamwork.

An addition

An acquaintance had a good point after reading this; the Micro cult reduces unit variety and unit mechanics in RTS design because they make it harder to micro.

This is correct. The Micro cult actively makes RTS design worse. This truly explains DoW3 as well as many other games.