So just over a week ago, I took part in your regularly scheduled Luchacast with Aurahack, GoranP, Pepsicolaboy & Pepsicolagirl. Don't remember it? That's because a technical fuck up stopped our collective screeches and bickerings from ever reaching your ears. Regardless, amidst the utter chaos came an interesting albeit unplanned discussion about the role mascots play in video-games today.

Well written... I agree with this.
 
It seems like a mascot for systems is less important than it used to be in the past - especially reflecting on Mario as your brought up, Crash Bandicoot, Kratos....
 
I felt as the PS2 went to Kratos - from then on it just wasn't really the same. It kinda died out with Crash on PS2... and from there I didn't really feel the PS3 had much of a mascot - a few they try to promote to different audiences but definitely less of an emphasis in promoting these characters.

I think mascots have, for the most part, been replaced by actual characters.  Back in the day because of technical limitations you could have entirely abstract and undefined things like Pac-Man sell a game, or a mascot-type like Mario or Sonic that had little story behind him and could be plugged into any game or setting you wanted to sell.
 
But now games just can't have mascots anymore as their primary characters.  If you put something into a game, in order to be properly adopted it has to be a well-defined character with voice, emotion, and serious characterization.  Even fantastical or abstract characters (Rachet & Clank, 'Splosion Man, Maw) still have enough definition in them that they mostly only make sense in their game or a similar setting.
 
People love some Master Chief or some Nathan Drake, but you can't take those characters out of their settings and place them out of context to sell something.  I want to play another Uncharted game because Nathan Drake is awesome, but I don't want to play as Nathan Drake in Nathan Drake's Kart Racing.  You can't have Master Chief Tennis.
 
Mario and all endure because of nostalgia and the fact that they've been established as mascots.  But I don't think you'll have many more, if any, be established and have the same power.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Here's the commercial.

I think the role of a mascot is to personify the system it represents.  Sonic was a bit of a bad-ass, while Mario was a lovable Italian average-Joe (It's harder to be more average-Joe than a plumber, though a good plumber is like an angel sent from heaven in times of need).

Pro-sports also has mascots, and I think they fall into a similar role.  They're supposed to symbolize something about the team.  There's a reason we have Dallas Cowboys and not Dallas Showgirls or Dallas Prairie Dogs playing football.  They're also easily recognized.  

I think that the mascots were never really all that important.  The original role seemed to be to star in the first-party launch titles, and it worked fine.

I do think that Mario will fade from public consciousness if he doesn't appear in any more games long enough.  Nothing is eternal, and the only reason Mario gets to be a cultural icon now is because people are still around who remember him.  I don't think mascots are "failing to perform their function" at all.  For Nintendo, the Gamecube was a socially oriented console (as in "the same room with friends" rather than "online with strangers you never speak to again"), and the Wii has just emphasized that even more.  Mario is still a friendly guy.  Master Chief, an icon for the Halo-box, embodies a different kind of personality that links up with Microsoft's strategy (closer to faceless competition).