Not unrealistic at all otherwise Capcom wouldnt have made the game. They certainly expected it to sell better, the whole reboot happened because RE6 was considered a fialure at 4.9 mil. But otherwise youre basically agreeing it bombed, Capcom wont be happy.

A more expensive reboot? 

RE6 costed more to make than VII, and VII had already recouped its development cost at 2.5M copies sold. 

Also: http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/million.html

Notice how RE6 was Capcom's second best selling title ever, behind RE5, as of December 31, 2017.

Monster Hunter World recently surpassed them and took the top spot.
Resident Evil VII is currently standing as the fourth best selling game in the franchise. Behind 5, 6 and 4. It figures in the company's top ten best selling games.

This comment from the producer should help you put things into perspective and see more clearly:

"The lifecycle for games is growing longer, driven by ongoing digital sales; as a result, Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6 have each sold more than 7.5 to 10 million units cumulatively (including catalog and re-release sales). As such, we will work to achieve 10 million cumulative lifetime unit sales for Resident Evil 7 as well."

Just to be clear, I do think there is a high probability that they will revert back to the action formula but ... 

I don't really know if I'd say that this is a "bomb" because the sales are lower. Keep in mind that a next generation action game as over the top as Resident Evil 6 would probably cost more to develop than Resident Evil 7. 

Capcom and Square Enix and other pubishers overestimating their hand isn't that uncommon and besides http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/million.html Resident Evil 6 ended up selling 7.1 million anyway. 

None of this is to mention that in other variations of the article you linked Capcom talks positively about titles like Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate or Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen, not because they made more profit off of them, but because they exceeded expectations. "Exceeding" expectations hardly matters at a point if your expectations are still too high to be realistic. Capcom more than likely made a very high profit off of Resident Evil 7.

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/pdf/explanation/2016/3rd/explanation_2016_3rd_03.pdf

We know Resident Evil 7 recouped it's development costs as far back as at least February 10th, so your "expensive reboot" thing is also a poor excuse. 

Also just looking at Capcom's statements it's clear they see Resident Evil 7 as a game who's benchmarks should be based on consistency and not initial sales...

" As of January 27, it has shipped 2.5 million units. (*3 million units as of February 10.) Compared to Resident Evil 6 this may seem like a lower initial pace, however this can be attributed to the recent wider adoption of digital downloads and the transition from a sharp initial spike in sales for games to a continuous long tail. Further, we believe that achieving our fiscal-year target of 4 million units for this title is wholly possible, as we expect sales to continue for a longer period, buoyed on highly positive post-launch reviews from both the media and consumers."

Like I said, they are probably a little disappointed but that doesn't mean I'm "admitting it's a bomb". Quite the opposite, Capcom just overestimates and it's pretty well documented. 

I don't know if it bombed or not but if so, great. I was playing the game when it launched on PS1 and I gave up when it became a new IP with RE4. I want the franchise to go back to that or I'm not playing it.

You have a distinct posting style where a review score below 85 is a critical failure, and sales of 5mln copies are a bomb.

It wasn't supposed to return the series to its peak. The current series' peak is RE 5, currently standing at around 10M units sold cumulatively.

No. VII was supposed to return the series to its survival-horror roots. And it did.

Capcom mentioned back in February 2017 that they'd recouped their development budget for RE7 in the first week of release, back when the game had shipped 2.5 million, and they were happy with those numbers. RE6 had a huge development team of over 600 members, while RE7 had a team of just 120 apparently, so it sounds like they tightened their belts a lot after RE6 didn't meet its unrealistic expectations, made a game they could more easily manage with lower sales expectations, and it paid off.

It wasn't a failure and it didn't "bomb". Just because the publisher wanted more doesn't mean it was a failure. Are you going to tell me Bloodborne was a failure aswell?

So scoring in the 70's for Kirby means it "bombed" and north of 5 million means resident evil 7 "bombed"...?

I feel that word has lost all meaning.

Different games, different developers and publishers, different budgets, different markets and audiences = different expectations. It's like saying "Zelda bombed because it's far from GTA5 numbers", it's just ridiculous. You can't say that because Final Fantasy was a disappointment at 5 millions, Resident Evil is a bomb for the same sales.  You're comparing apples and oranges. You're just wrong, at least in your arguments.