Just because it new doesn't mean it's not true. Since 2013, there's been a new Zelda every year for what is now three years, and Aonuma has literally gone on record saying that he wants a new Zelda game of some kind releasing every year. Hell, Captain Toad was originally going to be a Zelda game.

2013 - WWHD and ALBW

2014 - Hyrule Warriors

2015 - Majora's Mask and Zelda U

It's a yearly franchise by definition, and I'm 100% sure that we'll get another Zelda game of some kind next year, even if Zelda U isn't delayed.

I don't think Nintendo could produce annual franchises if they wanted to. They don't seem to have the manpower because if they did we would see a lot more games coming out. At this point in the Wii U life cycle, it should be in full swing with tons of games releasing and being announced and the developers becoming more familiar and comfortable with the hardware, instead Nintendo seems to be so passive when it comes to supporting their consoles. It seems like there will only be a few more big titles left for the Wii U before they move on and that's sad for only 2 and a quarter years. If you can't wrangle the 3rd party support like they used to, than they should be cashing in all their old franchises and creating a few more each generation to build up rosters.

Isnt Pokémon pretty much an annual franchise...?

I thought the same thing. It's they aren't even minor differences. Even if you don't count RBGY as different games you still have

RBGY

GSC

RSE

FRLG

DPPt

HGSS

BW

B2W2 (They are completely different games with completely different story lines)

XY

and now ORAS.

Even if you don't count ORAS at the time of that image, that's nine unique games. It's like they're predenting that the remakes aren't completely distinct games from the originals, so distinct that they had to literally create a multiverse and an entire Pokemon to explain them.

Oh I see. You consider, "Hyrule Warriors" a Zelda game, even though it doesn't have Legend of Zelda in the titile and doesn't play like a Zelda game. 

Its a good thing

They mean you count Red and Blue, Gold and Silver, etc as different games. Do you count the Game of the Year editions of these games as separate games as the original version? Of course not, so why would you count different SKU's of the same game? 

I definitely think that remakes and spin offs count. They're almost as important as a new Zelda game if you ask me. Not counting remakes and spin offs is disreguarding a lot of relevant games if you ask me.

There's no "considering." It's a Zelda game. There's no opinion there. Aonuma, the producer, considers it a Zelda game. It's a Zelda game. That's like saying "Pokken Tournament" isn't a Pokemon game because it doesn't have Pokemon in the title and doesn't play like a Pokemon game. Or that Captain Toad's Treasure Tracker isn't a Mario Game because it doesn't have Mario in the title and doesn't play like a Mario game. Give me a break.

Metal Gear was a video game series before Metal Gear Solid. I don't consider San Andreas and Vice City as spinoffs. They play the same as the main series. Although, if we really get into it, there is a difference between a spin off and counting the same game twice because it has minor differences between versions. Of course they should've added Pokemon spinoffs too, which they didn't. I guess because the spin off games are vastly different. 

For example, with metal gear you have: 

1. Metal Gear

2. Metal Gear 2

3. Metal Gear Solid

4. Metal Gear Solid: Ghost Babel 

5. Metal Gear Solid 2

6. Metal Gear Solid 3

7. Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops

8. Metal Gear Solid 4

9. Metal Gear Solid Online

10. Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker

11. Metal Gear Rising

12. Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes

13. Metal Gear Acid

And if they include Twin Snakes as a separate game

14. Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes