My answer is - (Hell) yes, we definitely need others, and this is not an egoic need, it is a genuine need. I'm pretty sure ET is saying no, we don't need others; we can sit in a room all our lives and be perfectly content.
I still think you may be misinterpreting him.
Step back a little, give it some space.
We 'need' to eat in order for our bodies to survive / function healthily.
But what when how we eat is fairly impersonal - unless our egos makes our hunger into obstacle, enemy, means to an end >>> egos creating suffering out of what is not, rather than acceptance, enjoyment, enthusiasm for what IS.
We biologically 'need' others in terms of survival assistance, companionship, Maslow's hierarchy of needs etc but in order for that to be consistently healthy we need to recognise when ego is distorting it from the natural into the unnatural.
If we recognise that we are already complete, and the 'other' is also already complete - then any interactions are complementary, rather than cause for dissatisfaction. So if you are with someone or not with anyone - in acceptance, enjoyment or enthusiasm great! As ET says if you're not in one of these states STOP because ego is making enemy, obstacle or means to an end of a person, thing or situation.
So in a way by saying you NEED something, you're energising the 'lack of' & thereby creating suffering out of the thoughts about that, rather than the reality of it.
I have to say, I think Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God explains conscious relationships better than ET does. (Except for that wonderful pointer re: if you're making enemy, obstacle, means to an end of a thing, person or situation that is ego arguing with what is).
ET has a relationship - so I don't think he's suggesting we hole ourselves up in a room on our own.