Okay. But OLED makes colors more vibrant. Say you're playing Sly Cooper on the Vita 1000, and you enjoy it. But then you see that he looks more purple than blue, though him having blue clothes was advertised. Strange, huh? Also, while researching OLED, it's prone to moisture, which can damage the screen. It also has less of a lifespan, having ~100,000 hours of usage before going dim. It also can't display very brightly compared to LCD. Last thing, LCD, with the delay, creates motion blur. Cool, ain't it?
So, LCD may be prone to fall damage, but OLED is prone to many things. Even just using it is enough to hurt it just slightly.
None of the arguments made above about OLED are either sensible, nor valid. You must have gotten the absolute lowest end of an "AMOLED" screen from an ancient Samsung phone or something, and that's not the same as the OLED we are talking about nowadays. My Vita's never looked like you are describing, I don't know if you're truly seeing the wrong colours, or you just read some bogus article somewhere and decided to believe it. Either way, the Vita screen is a lot older than any OLED you would see nowadays, and shouldn't even be compared.
Have you ever used an OLED TV? It doesn't have to be over-saturated if you actually calibrate it properly instead of using stupidly overly vibrant settings like "dynamic" or "vivid" which a lot of TVs have out of the box for some stupid reason (maybe a marketing strategy to be like "hey look how colourful this is, it stands out"). Almost every LCD ships in the same way, with ridiculous colour settings.
The only TV I ever had that was purple instead of blue was an old LCD TV, where someone had clearly messed with the service menu on it. If your OLED really looks like that, then there's something wrong with it. OLED is superior technology and that's why it costs more. The argument that motion blur is good is just completely nonsensical, motion blur is caused by high response time, and high response time = bad. If you have a screen with about 20ms response time, then it's not very good and only realistically covers about 40fps, with the rest literally being a blur. Motion blur as a setting in games, maybe if that's your cup of tea then fine (I personally hate it), but you can't try to call a bad display superior due to having crappy response times.
If it "hurts" to look at your screen, you definitely need to turn down the backlight (or OLED light). No point using the wrong settings that aren't suitable for your environment and then saying the technology is flawed due to it.
Also, when it comes to how long they last, you go get yourself an OLED TV and LCD TV and leave them both running for years, then see which one outlasts the other, if you really have the time and money. Several LCDs fail due to their backlight, which an OLED doesn't need because it's self lit.
I won't be arguing about it but I'm just saying that nothing you said makes any sense. You can't use one OLED screen and then try to say they are all the same. Don't compare a Vita screen to the selection of OLED technology available today either, that's from over 10 years ago and it makes very little sense to use this as a base.
EDIT: That being said, I still have a few good LCD displays, given the price of OLED. My main TV at my partner's place is OLED and it's objectively better in every single way, especially for being used in a dark room.
)