Deadlocked and Size Matters are both part of the original series. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_%26_Clank

Original Series

• 1.1.1 Ratchet & Clank
• 1.1.2 Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando
• 1.1.3 Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal
• 1.1.4 Ratchet: Deadlocked
• 1.1.5 Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters

Have you played them? Cause Deadlocked plays very different from the others. Size Matters too, but that might be more an effect of it being a PSP game.

I've played the first three games on PS2, that's it. From what I've read deadlock's story is still part of the continuity though. That isn't something you can say for a spin-off or Hyrule Warriors. Even if it plays differently, it it is still a main game, plot-wise. 

A good comparison is Zelda II vs. the rest of the LoZ series. 

You're mixing canon with mainline now.

No, a side-story can still be canon. What I'm saying is that it was intended to continue the main storyline found in the other games. But do you consider Zelda II to be an LoZ game, with its different gameplay? 

I've got no idea about Legend of Zelda. I'd say 2d zeldas are one thing and 3d zeldas are another thing, based on what I know.

Zelda II is different from even other 2D Zeldas it is a sidescroller with an RPG-like overworld. Why is R&C: Overclocked called R&C 4 in Japan and Size Matters called R&C 5 in Japan if they aren't main series games? 

"Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters (also known as Ratchet & Clank 5 in Japan) "

"also known as Ratchet: Gladiator in Europe and Australia and Ratchet & Clank 4 in Japan"

Ever since the 8th post this has been Missing the Point: The Thread.

Let's ignore the inconsistencies in a picture posted on 4chan several years ago. New Super Mario Bros U released in 2012, Mario 3D World released in 2013, and Mario Kart 8 released in 2014. Hypothetically, let's imagine no other Mario games were released during that time. Does this make the "Mario" franchise annual? Some will say yes, others will say no. It's honestly not a cut-and-dry situation. The meaning of Reggie's statement is obvious. Debating semantics for 15 pages isn't going to change anything.

Pointing fingers at other companies is pointless. We're going on five years without a new Mega Man game of any kind; calling Capcom out for milking it 20 years ago is counterproductive to gamers literally begging them to continue the series. The exact opposite is the Metal Gear series, which was not (by any possible interpretation of the term) 'annualized' until 2008, and even then only if counting spin-offs and remakes/collections.

Apparently everyone forgot about Mario Party from 1999-2007.

2007 was eight years before Reggie made this claim.