In the cases of Monster Hunter and RDR2: overestimation from investors. There was no overestimation for RE7 since its expected sales were lower than the previous two RE titles.
As for RE7 making its budget back on preorders alone, that's likely because it was a low budget title (which raises a question: why was a low-budget, contentless game sold at $60?)
RE7's expected sales were 4 million, which is what RE6 made in it's first week. They just adjusted projections to match the previous numbered title, plus taking into account they were going in a new direction departing from co-op and action, and that is bound to result in lower numbers (which it did, and yet the game has enjoyed a steady success ever since).
Regardless, though, it's very clear where you stand when you call RE7 a "low budget, contentless game". You're either very misinformed, have a serious vendetta against the game, or both.
Capcom never did that until RE7. The Gold Edition of RE5 is counted as separate.
The lion-share ($) of most games happens during their release windows.
And yet when talking about RE5 sales you add up all of it's ports and the Gold Edition, because that's the totality of RE5's sales. Doing it now is just simplifying a process they internally do anyway.
Yes, a big chunk of a game's profit is initial sales. And then they keep selling, eventually getting discounts. That's lifetime sales.
To survive in the AAA market you either create trends or follow trends. Capcom is too risk-averse to create trends, so going full open-world would be a great way to refresh the series and incentive consumers. Do you really think there's a lot of people willing to pay $60 for another small, linear, single-player only game?
6.1 million and counting say yes.
