That can't be accurate compared to the like of PCL. Glass aspheric lenses typically only lose about 1% of light throughput, making them generally the best in their class. This is why the image in these devices, often powered by RGB striped QLEDs with local dimming, remain very bright, even in low persistence mode.
Now, the Quest 3 with its pancake lenses however (perhaps even up to 85-90% light lost) that's where you would be right. You really need bright displays (and good batteries...) to make the pancake lenses shine. And "luckily" the Quest does, including having a full sub-pixel array.
Sony notoriously had to compromise low persistence to save display brightness. Even at its dimmest setting of ~60 nits, it's among the headsets with the highest persistence, leading to a blurrier image. Additionally, the OLEDs suffer from a pentile arrangement, which effectively reduces the sub-pixel resolution to about 66%. The result is a blurrier image with poor edge-to-edge clarity (at least you can dial up the fixed foveated rendering and save a lot of processing power.....), aberration, distortion and low sub-pixel resolution, which isn't exactly "high end" VR in 2024. For my use I'd take a Quest 3 with pancake lenses and LCD displays any day.
An interesting tidbit is that a new wave of PCVR headsets are now starting to come with micro-OLEDs (first out Bigscreen Beyond, next up Pimax Crystal Super, and then a floodgate of others)(Apple Vision Pro as well btw), which is another beast entirely. Some of these displays have a brightness of up to around 5000 nits(!), and theoretically they can go all the way up to 15000 nits(!). The future is bright..
Anyway, to be fair, every design involves balance and trade-offs. Ironically, this is why Sony transitioned from aspherical lenses in the PSVR1 to fresnel lenses in the PSVR2. There's no generally perfect configuration for all.
