Perhaps the problem is a lack of definition over what "IT" is.
If you say "VR support" - what does that mean exactly? To one person it might be VR "vision", where you can experience the view in VR, but not interact in a VR-way. To another it might be the full gamut ala Half-Life: Alyx and other VR-specialised games.
The former may well be comparatively easy to implement, the latter is by all accounts much much more difficult. I would suspect that it's the latter that is the problem.
The current game can call itself a "VR game" by virtue of the player being stuck in a seat. As soon as FPS elements are in it can't do that without implementing proper VR interaction mechanisms.
I don't know how it looks to FD but my initial instinct seeing the "We want VR ED:O!" posts was for full VR support. This might not be the case of course but perhaps that distinction isn't sufficiently obvious? Perhaps I haven't read enough posts.
I think FD would be alot more likely to confirm VR support if they were confident that "VR vision" as it were was acceptable.
