"Need" was never the point of conversation though. The point was that Blizzard only brings classes into the game that brings unique themes and gameplay opportunities, and have a connection to the RTS game. Demon Hunters are eliminated from contention for the first reason. Bards are eliminated from contention for the second reason.
I wouldn't hold my breath.It works both ways, doesn't it? There IS a 'vocal minority' that wants TBC servers back. If there were a functional way to incorporate it into WoW without splitting the community, then I'm sure they would consider it.
Again, "need" was never the point of this discussion. Blizzard determines need. Blizzard deemed that we needed DKs and Monks, so we got DKs and Monks.As for a new class, it fits in with their design goals of moving forward and expanding the World of Warcraft. It's almost inevitable that we would get one in the future, even if we don't need it to keep the game interesting. The point is we don't need a new Class any more than we need new Races, but we will still get it because that's what keeps people invested in the long run.
More than likely Blizzard doesn't view the Warlock melee component as necessary because they don't view the DH as necessary. When they do, that's more than likely the direction they'll take (if they ever do). Frankly, the possibility of a DH class died when TBC was in the planning stages. Blizzard has been putting nails in the coffin ever since.Then why don't Warlocks have their melee spec yet? Like you said, they're already doing it for other classes in WoD, and for the past 10 years they've been folding Demon Hunter into Warlock; surely there must be a reason Warlocks are being omitted from this type of design. Maybe the answer is as simple as Warlocks should remain as Spellcasters.