Ford have removed cassettes from their cars, full stop. FD are removing VR from ED full stop, exactly the same analogy, perfectly correct, don't give me the legacy version nonsense. As I said previously, when someone start playing semantics like "ED:O never had it" they lost the argument a long time ago, as have you.
You are comfortable not having VR in ED:O, then you've said your bit, no one agrees but you've said. No need for you to comment further. I and many others are not getting VR in the next version of the game, and we will continue to ask for it or clarification. You don't need to comment, that makes you a troll that one may have said but others are thinking.
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.