I'm not a huge fan of Essentials-style characters. I might've been on board if they existed once 4e began, but when I started playing 4e, I was won over by the powers system. Fighters are no longer "beginner" characters (in fact, I think they're probably the most complex class in the original PHB), so players are free to play what they want regardless of skill level. Which was great news for me, because I was always the guy who wanted to play a wizard, but was told by the DM to play something "easier" until I learned the rules... which resulted in me playing a character I was bored with and not invested in, and getting bored of the game and walking away. I also loved how leveling up felt like a treat; you got to add some new shiny power or feat to your arsenal, from a list of exciting, ever-growing choices. Though the 'rules mastery' aspect is what initially scared me away from 3e, I started to really get into the 'char op' aspect of 4e. Since Essentials classes 1) reintroduce the "easy" and "complex" class dichotomy and 2) give you either fewer choices for benefits-per-level or no choice at all, I knew instantly that the Essentials classes simply were not for me.
But... that's me. That's my bag o' issues. Others might love the simplicity, and they should go ahead and play them. Essentials characters work fine alongside 'old-style' 4e characters. But still, I feel like it's a little disingenious to say "If you don't like Essentials options, then don't use 'em. No problem!" There is a problem when the Essentials options are straight up better than the 'old-style' options. Those of us that prefer the old style will be left in the dust as Essentials options bloat up.
It's pretty clear now that we're not going to see a 'fix' for a Warlock. The poor PHB1 Star Pact Warlock is a mess. Do you split Cha/Con so you can use all your powers? Well, be prepared to have absolutely horrid AC for your entire adventuring career. Do you sacrifice Con to go Cha? Sure, if you don't mind one of your two at-wills being completely and utterly useless to you. Go straight Con? Eh... better read a few levels ahead to make sure you have good, flavorful Con-based options open to you at every level. This is in addition to the usual warlock problems of doing sub-Striker damage, supposedly compensated by being a good "single-target Controller" (the benefits of a good "single-target Controller" kind of fall apart when you can stun in a blast 3 as an Invoker at level 1... but I digress).
I've heard the Hexblade is pretty bad, but I somehow doubt that it's worse off than the Star Pact Warlock. And now in Heroes of Shadow they'll be getting a Gloom Pact*. Who knows, maybe it'll fully eclipse the "old-style" Warlock.
Of course, this is a slippery slope argument, with all the flaws inherent in it. I'm just saying that the constant refrain of "If you don't like Essentials, don't use it!" is irritating, because it's implying that if we don't prefer Essentials, we can happily ignore it and everything will be the same. Until... you run a game with a Hexblade and a poor, poor 12 AC Star Pact Warlock in the same party. It's hard to ignore it when it's right in your face, outshining in you in every category and receiving a steady drip of support even though your chosen iteration of the Warlock has been sitting in the back of the class, waiting patiently for its teeth to come in, since pretty much Day 1.
I'm not anti-Essentials... I'm just anti-people-who-are-overly-dismissive-of-anti-Essentials-people's-concerns, if that makes any sense. I think it's fair to say that, yes, Essentials is receiving more attention than "old style" stuff. Asking "When are we going to see more support for the old-school stuff?" is a legitimate question to ask. Unfortunately, my guess is probably never. Right now, Essentials is new, and they'll likely want to develop it to the point where it has at least half as many options as "vanilla" 4e. Since it took us years to get to this level of content for "vanilla" 4e, I imagine it'll take a while before Essentials is essentially filled in enough to begin focusing on old school 4e once again. And, frankly, by that time, WotC might seriously be considering a 5e.
What I'd -really- like to see is some sort of errata that basically eliminates all the obsolete "trap" choices. Powers, generally speaking, are fun and numerous without getting unreasonable, but we have ridiculous feat bloat. Some, like Human Perseverance, are just plain outlcassed now, making them utterly useless. I'd like to see the "utterly useless" feats basically errated out of the game. I think you could seriously cut down on like 100 feats this way.
Anyway, that was a long, rambling mini-rant. To answer the OP's original question, though, I'd say: "I hear you, but don't hold your breath. Remember the Star Pact Warlock." Besides, we have enough options for vanilla 4e as it is (with the possible exception of a few classes, like the Seeker and Runepriest, and with the horribly-implemented magic item rarity). The only old-school support we frankly need (as opposed to just wanting real bad) is the cutting away of redundancies, like the feat issue I mentioned above. Or maybe a little warning label for the Star Pact Warlock.
*Yes, I'm aware that we'll also be getting powers that "any Warlock can take." Still, I think it's fair to assume that a sizeable number of them will be geared toward the new Gloom Pact. And new powers, no matter how shiny, will never fix what's broken with the old-style Warlocks.
