While I am happy to see competition, the Meta Quest 2 is cheaper and has vastly superior software, both in terms of the OS/features and update frequency and also the library of titles available. Meta have teams of the worlds best VR engineers and developers working on the Quest 2 and there is no way that the Pico Neo 3 can ever hope to compete with that. The only benefit you are getting with the Neo 3 is an uncompressed stream, though with tweaks you can get the Quest 2 looking damn good. Wireless streaming on the Neo3 from the PC is also getting some bad feedback at the moment too.
The Quest 2 isn't much cheaper, not the 256GB model. And remember the display port cable comes free with the Pico Neo 3. There are more advantages than just the uncompressed streaming. Larger FOV, full RGB support(not limited like the Quest 2) Better lenses, ADB out of the box, better stock strap.
As for the games library, that will come, as will the updates and features. Pico will have loads of money, their parent company is ByteDance(Tiktok) So getting the best engineers or developers onto their platform won't be a problem.
Are there disadvantages? Sure, the Pico Neo 3 is a beta headset. They have made that clear. They are going to have issues to iron out. Like the Wireless Streaming and the Steam VR aspect ratio. But they are one better than the Quest 2 in regards to wireless, at least they are supporting it from the very start, unlike on the Quest 2, where it needed third party developers to enable wireless connection to a PC. Even the cable connection was still in Beta. The other thing is if you buy a Pico Neo 3, you will get their final release headset at a discounted price.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Quest 2 is great. I have one and will continue using it. The only reason I was asking Tyke would he have considered the Pico is that he is coming from trying out two wired PCVR headsets. So a Standalone games library wasn't going to be a concern.