The pressure to do something is very likely if this continues for a long time frame. I'm not against HFs, if there is wide consensus, I think bitcoin never having HFs in the future is a bit romantic and can lead to less optimal solutions but I also don't believe an blocksize increase will happen through HF in this cycle, even with high fees for a long time, but things will get hot for sure in the community.
Discussion
We will need at least one hardfork to address Unix time rollover. HF's would be a political disaster if they aren't extremely small, targeted, critical fixes to address universally-acknowledged existential threats. They should not include any features that are open-ended dev toys and meant to enhance building upon bitcoin.