If you do that how do you represent this?
That being said I find also annoying as hell the spanish Siberia. I think to begin with the colonization needs to be different in each continent. Is also absurd the expansion of the european powers in certain parts of Africa, either it is in certain parts of Asia. So while the New World can be still the colonization game as we know it maybe in Africa and Asia should work in a different manner.
The problem with this map is that a lot of the area "claimed" by Spain in this image wasn't really settled for a century or more afterwards. And parts of your map just seem to be incorrect for that period.
For instance, you have "Alto California" (present day state of California in the U.S.) as being shown as part of the Spanish Empire. Which it was. However, it was merely a vastly unexplored claim. Garpar de Portola led his forces north out of Mexico and founded the Presidio of San Diego in 1769. Monterey Bay, which would be home to the future capital, was indeed explored c. 1602. But the capital itself, Monterey, wasn't founded until 1770. The Mission San Francisco de Asis was only created in 1776. San Jose, as a city, was founded in 1777.
Another part of the map that you show as "Spanish" is the Dakotas. However, they never really got that far north up the Mississippi until after 1762, when Spain was ceded the Western Louisiana territory (Treaty of Fontainebleau). Even then, they barely explored a fraction of the entire expanse by the time the French nullified the treaty under Napoleon and sold it off to the nascent United States in 1803.
The Spanish definitely claimed the Philippines by this point in history, but studying the extent of their holdings in the territory shown at the time reveals that they had just a few settlements, and the natives were far from integrated into their control. Indeed, after founding the first settlement in the "Archipelago of St. Lazarus" (as so named by Magellan) at Cebu, the Spanish were driven off by violent attacks. It was decades before they founded a second. Legazpi's expedition of 1564 couldn't even land on Cebu because of native opposition to their arrival; they had to veer off and settled Panay instead.
It wasn't until 1570 that the tribes around Manila were conquered and the territory could be administered by the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico). Yet the contesting of the islands would continue until the end of the 16th Century, with Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese forces all attempting to raid or demand tribute of the locals. The Spanish, however, were a small minority attempting to rule over a vast native population that wasn't very keen on accepting foreign overlordship. For example, whatever the Spanish might claim as their territory at the time, the sultanates of Mindanao certainly did not recognize Spanish rule until the 17th Century (c. 1605 - 1645), so I am not sure why that island is shown as red on the map for the 16th Century.
In South America, Patagonia, though shown as fully red in your map, was an uncolonized frontier and would remain so until after the EUIV period, when Welsh settlers came over starting in 1865.
These are just the saliant errors and clarifications I'd make. There are likely a myriad more of them to go into.
The main point I'd make is that establishing a settlement meant thereafter a burden or duty to maintain administration over the territory. Many of these territories, while profitable, required a tremendous investment in energy to maintain -- especially in shipping. After a while, the Spanish hit a sort of "maximum carrying capacity."
Whereas the EUIV colonization system is more of a "fire and forget." Especially with colonial nations taking over administration of territory. You just send your colonist off to the next, and the next, and the next province. Hence Iberian Siberia.
Yet in history, all of this would have been a vast "claim," at first empty of Spanish settlers and filling gradually throughout the 17th - 18th Century.
