Haha, good one.

To be honest I don't think MS or Sony make any more seqeuls than Nintendo in the same generation. I could be wrong but exclusives Like Halo, GT5, Metal Gear, Gears and GoW don't come around very often on the same system.

Actually the only game that is out everyday seems to be COD but that's not exclusive. Of course sports also have an anual release.

Resistance 1,2,3

Uncharted 1,2,3

LBP 1,2

Halo 3, ODST, Reach, 4

Gears 1,2,3,Judgement

Forza 2,3,4, Horizon

That's a fair number of sequels to some big IP's and I left the Vita versions out where applicable.  Nintendo do a much better job of maintaining the long term value of their IP's through careful use.  For me there has been a tendency by Microsoft and Sony to push known sellers out of the door to keep people interested in their consoles with less risk taking.

If you consider that many of Nintendo's IPs date back to the NES, it would be burdensome for them to release more that 1-2 per console generation. As it is, some IPs don't even get sequels every generation. Chibi Robo, Pikmin, Star Fox, F-Zero all missed at least one generation, and those are just a fraction of the titles.

As the years go on and people clamor for more original content from Nintendo the list of fans to placate grows. It's kind of a lose-lose scenario for a company that so many people love to mock, regardless of the fact that they are one of the most consistent, hard working developers out there.

because Nintendo likes to do something fresh and new with their franchises...

I think the biggest factor is legs. Too many games of the same franchise would undermine the legs of the other games. Think of the effects of Mario Party 9 and Wii Party on Mario Party 8. One or two games and it's fine. Once you have a more regular release schedule-COD-, it starts becoming a very front loaded in sales.

I'm glad that they do that. In the ling run it benefits the franchise, and will give it a longer life.

Multiple sequels for a single franchise in the same generation is a bad thing, not a good one. It exhausts the interest from the franchise, and takes away time from other games you could be making.

Take Naughty Dog, for instance. This is what they've done on consoles:

PS: Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, 3, Racing
PS2: Jak 1, 2, 3, Racing
PS3: Uncharted 1, 2, 3

They make good games overall, with 3 different franchises, but they've stuck to only one franchise per gen. Most people are tired after the second game, a third (per gen) is pushing it. Imagine if they instead made 1 Crash, 1 Jak, and 1 Uncharted per gen? They'd have 3 solid franchises still alive today.

Instead, Crash and Jak are dead, and people are getting tired of Uncharted. This isn't unique to Sony, of course, Microsoft had Bungie stuck on a single franchise for too long, and Gears of War is seeing too many releases. By attemping to "play it safe," these companies end up killing off their IP's, their future.

If the Galaxy 2 budget was even 2/3s of what the Galaxy budget was, several people need to be fired. The game looked slightly better. It obviously used the same engine, which was much of the expensive of Galaxy. The team already know exactly what they were doing so Galaxy 2 was much easier for them to make. Ninteno likely made more money off of it because it was substantially less expensive to make and market.

Mario Galaxy 2 came out 3 years after the first one, so of course it sold a few million less then MG 1.

I just thought I would add that.