The larger the company, the more process involved and the more approvals required.
Work items are ranked by how much value they are to the company against how much development investment they require, and taking into account any lead times.
Delivery dates are set for either meeting market opportunities or promises, and failing those, not at all.
It's clear that Frontier doesn't yet see a significant enough market opportunity for extending VR support to the Odyssey expansion.
They're not going to make a promise for a proper implementation of VR at launch, as it's likely there's already a feature freeze, and they'd otherwise throw off their Product Roadmap, which would push out their intended release date where they planned to capitalize.
They may also not promise to have a proper VR implementation post-launch if there are already fairly firm plans for the Roadmap beyond launch, which for most companies is usually the case, because the backlog is almost always a mile long.
So, the way I see it at least, having an unsupported or unofficial launcher option for a barebones "as-is" or "janky" VR experience is probably the best hope for having any VR in Odyssey in the next year or two, or maybe even at all.
I think that VR players would be justified in being upset if Odyssey did not allow us to be Ship or SRV seat-bound, and experience the updated planetary graphics in VR, because practically no work is required for that to happen, other than to provide the launcher option.
I also think that most VR players would accept a janky VR FPS mode if the rest of the game worked as it does now in VR, if the other option was nothing at all, which it really does appear is the case, unless there's some way to convince the product and delivery teams that there's a significant gain to be realised, or a sizeable loss to avoid.