If you're talking about the 1931 version, you're right about it being low budget. Its cost to make was $291,000--low even for those days. Its companion flick, "Dracula" (1931) cost $355,000; and the Charlie Chaplin movie of the year, "City Lights" had a budget of $1.5 million.
"Frankenstein" (1931) has made $12 million since then, though, so it's probably the most profitable of the three. As for its being "cheesy", well...you have to consider that different things scared people back then.
In the 40's, a war film was all that was needed to scare the pants off of the public.
In the 50's, it was the red menace and atomic mutation, in the form of alien invasions and mutated bugs.
It seems as though the classic monsters made a comeback in the 60's, but that interest died out when the slasher movies took over.
Anyway, according to the IMDb, the "Frankenstein" character (or rather, the monster) has been in over 1,000 films. The last remake (that I can remember) was the ho-hum Kenneth Branagh version, which cost $45 million but made only $22 million domestic (and little elsewhere).
I've always believed that the movie was only made because Copolla's "Dracula" (1992) was such a success (budget: $40 million. Worldwide gross: $192 million).
Since "Frankenstein" (1994) sucked so bad, however, there was a drought in classic movie monster movies until "The Mummy" (1999).
It's the same with any movie trend. There will be several more comic book-based movies until they ALL start sucking, then there won't be any for awhile. Wait and see.