Franchises make money, but do they give gaming credibility as art?

One thing that has been bothering me recently is how games, no matter how great or how bad for that matter, are so quick to become franchises. Ever since I started to organize my ps2 games on my brand new DVD rack, I realized how many sequels I had. Metal Gear Solids, Resident Evils, Devil May Crys, Katamari Damacies, and Silent Hills, all lined up. Nothing more than a collection of successful titles turn franchises. It was at this point when I realized, "Do most of these games really need sequels?". Some people might say yes, especially if said sequels are much more superior than their predecessors. But, is that all that gaming is on a creative level? Are current and aspiring game developers satisfied with making one great game and a slew of cash grabbing sequels?

Now, I'm a big sucker for franchise games, I don't mind buying the next Super Mario Bros., (Galaxy is going to be fucking amazing BTW) and I know that the gaming industry is a big business whose main objective is to make money, but can't one game be enough? I understand that some games are just too big story-wise to make just one game and thus justifies a sequel, but do they <i>all</i> need to become franchises? Katamari Damacy was a really good game, but was there really a need to make We Love Katamari? Crazy Taxi and Jet Set Radio were amazing, artistic, games in their own merits like Einhander and Skies of Arcadia, for example. The only difference is that unlike Einhander and Skies of Arcadia, these two games had sequels that, in my opinion, were unnecessary. Even though I consider video games as art, it is becoming hard to say so when creativity is outweighed by profit. Of course, the film industry is just as bad what with movies met with sequel after sequel. But honestly, Eraserhead didn't need a sequel, it did was it was supposed to do, be disturbing as fuck. Why couldn't Silent Hill do the same with just one game?

And thats the end of my first incoherent rant.