I actually really don't like it.
But in a way it's only consequent: The existing 4e classes were already devoid of any in-game relevance. Class names are just convenient labels for archetypes. So, I shouldn't be surprised by the vampire 'class'.
Actually, I think classes have always been somewhat more or less archetypes for fantasy role playing, with varying degrees of in-game relevance. I may have had my character describe himself as a wizard, but rarely had one describe himself as a 'fighter' (unless, of course, as opposed to being a 'lover'

). In this context, describing oneself as a 'vampire' makes as much sense as 'fighter'. Now I'm not to thrilled about the whole "now you can play a vampire" concept myself, and they can still botch the implementation, but I see no reason why it can't be a class if that is the defining characteristic of a PC.
I mean the class is where it is at as far as representing the character you want to play. Yes, races add a little, but its mostly flavor and window dressing. Remember, during the lead up to 4th edition when one of the design diaries mentioned making a 20th level elf fighter stand out and be different from a 20th level dwarf fighter? Then it turns out that there were a number of people disappointed by the fact that they really didn't succeed to well in that aim. I guess that it is difficult to have anything that makes you mechanically stand out that much in a class based game that isn't a class. Sure, feats, races and skills (and now themes) help calibrate the character you want; you can even add on more layers with templates, paragon paths, epic destinies and such, but at some point you're just layering in complexities for little gain. You might as well go back to the basic class structure and go from there if you have a unique enough concept.
I wonder if we might see an 'elf' or 'dwarf' class in the future?
