With the launch of the Pico Neo 3 Pro, many people are asking if the Pico Neo 3 is the best VR headset for business use. This article compares the pros and cons of the Pico Neo 3 Pro, Pico Neo 3 Link and the Meta Quest 2 VR Headsets.
In this article, we will go into more detail about the following points
|Pico Neo 3 Pro||Meta Quest 2|
|Pico Neo 3||Meta Quest 2|
The specifications of both devices can be seen below.
|Pico Neo 3 Pro||Meta Quest 2|
|Resolution||1.832 x 1.920 Pixel per eye||1.832 x 1.920 Pixel per eye|
|Refresh rate||72/90 Hz||60/72/90 Hz|
|Field of view||98°||89°|
|Processor||Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2||Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2|
|Weight||395 grams (without band), 620 grams (in total)||516 grams|
|Storage (ROM)||256 GB||64 GB /256 GB|
|RAM||6 GB||6 GB|
|Tracking||Inside-Out 6DoF with 4 integrated cameras||Inside-Out 6DoF with 4 integrated cameras|
|Battery||2,5 h||2- 3h|
|Price||599 €||349 € (64 GB)
449 € (256 GB)
Apart from the color not much has changed in the design of the Quest 2. The Meta Quest 2 still has an elastic band that holds the headset in place. The design of the strap offers ease and comfort for all users and it can easily be adjusted and combined with other Meta accessories. For more comfort, Meta also offers “Elite Straps”. However, there has been an issue with skin irritation from these straps, Meta is currently reviewing this issue.
In terms of ergonomics, the Meta Quest 2 has been ergonomically built and easily fits over your face. One downside of the design of the Meta Quest 2 is that it has all of its weight on the front of your face, this can lead to discomfort after extended use.
Looking at the Pico Neo 3, it has undergone some design upgrades in large part due to the addition of two external cameras giving the device a more rounded shape compared to its predecessor.
In terms of the device’s ergonomics, Pico has continued, like with other headsets, to focus on weight distribution. Just like the Pico Neo 2, the Pico Neo 3 Pro has an even balanced weight distribution thanks to the battery on the back of the headset, making the headset easy to use for extended periods of time. The headset also uses a gearwheel system allowing the headset to be adjusted exactly to the users preferences.
The Pico Neo 3 headset comes with a replaceable 3D PU face pad with anti-fouling coating that can be easily cleaned and disinfected.
With a weight of 395 grams (without band) and 620 grams (in total), the Pico Neo 3 Pro is heavier overall than the Meta variant which weighs 520 grams. However, because of the even weight distribution the Pico Neo 3 is more comfortable to wear.
The display of the Meta Quest 2 offers a 4K-resolution of 1.832 by 1.920 pixels per eye. It supports a refresh rate of 90 Hz and has an 89° field of view.
The 4K display of the Pico Neo 3 Pro also offers a resolution of 1.832 x 1.920 pixels per eye and supports a refresh rate of 90 Hz, just like the Meta Quest 2.
The biggest difference in the devices is the Pico Neo 3’s larger field of view. The Neo 3 Pro has a 98° FOV compared to the 89° of the Quest 2. The Field of view is of critical importance to the realism of the VR experience as it allows users to see more of the virtual world at once. The larger field of view of the Pico Neo 3 Pro with its high resolution and refresh rate make it more immersive than the Quest 2.
|Pico Neo 3||Meta Quest 2|
|Resolution||1832×1920 per eye||1832×1920 per eye|
|Refresh Rate||90 Hz||90 Hz|
|Field of View||98°||89°|
Both headsets use inside-out tracking systems with 4 integrated cameras. The Quest 2’s positional tracking is smooth and fast, able to track inside even the biggest of Guardians up to 8x8m.
Regarding the controllers, they are also excellent, without much filter or lag. There is one downside to this type of tracking which is that the controllers can fail to be tracked when out of the FOV of the 4 external cameras. The headset can also have trouble tracking the controllers when they are brought too close to the headset.
The Pico Neo 3 with its 4 cameras has seen a massive improvement in its positional tracking. Now it can manage and track in areas of up to 10x10m and although not yet as crisp as the Quest 2, it is getting closer.
Regarding the controllers of the Pico Neo 3 Pro, it is also improved with its new optical tracking over the previous versions electromagnetic tracking. The tracking is smoother and faster, the only drawback is that it now has more trouble tracking the controllers when they fall out of the FOV of the external cameras, one of the main advantages of the Pico Neo 2.
Both headsets can be used in low light situations without severe issues, however, it is not recommended for the best possible performance.
The Quest 2 comes with new third-generation touch controllers. Overall, they appear a little larger and, like the first-generation touch controllers, offer a place to rest your thumb. The new controllers use AA batteries, giving them excellent battery life. Their weight is 150 grams each (including the battery) and the haptic elements have been revised and improved, the vibration feedback is finer and more sensible.
However, one of the downsides to this controller is that the controllers aren’t very intuitive, especially if you are new to VR. Many new users find it difficult to keep their fingers in the right places and press the right keys.
Pico offers improved accuracy and latency with the introduction of two new 6DoF controllers that use 32 optical tracking sensors for complex environmental positioning. They look very similar to the Quest 2 touch controllers. Haptic feedback is also supported by the Neo 3 Pro controllers and although it is a big switch from the Pico Neo 2 controllers, the Neo 3 controllers feel more natural in the user’s hands. The controllers are also easier for users switching over from Meta due to the design.
Both devices offer wired streaming capabilities. For wired streaming, Meta offers the Meta Link which remains one of the most effective solutions, while Pico offers wired streaming via a special DisplayPort and cable (Pico Neo3 Link). Both headsets can stream PC VR content with 4K resolution and 90 Hertz refresh rate.
While Meta is close to releasing its Air Link software, it is still currently unavailable meaning Meta has no official wireless streaming capabilities. It is possible to do this, however, these must be done with unofficial wireless solutions like Virtual Desktop and Riftcat to name a few. These solutions can work well, however it is very dependent on your network strength.
The Pico Neo 3 does support wireless streaming, allowing the headset to be used without cables, which makes the experience even better. What is great about the system is that it is easy to set up. Users only need to open the Pico Streaming Assistant application on a computer, followed by opening the application on the headset itself. From there it is a few clicks to finalise the setup and you are up and running with full access to SteamVR. The Pico Neo 3 Pro’s improved performance and setup means almost all applications can be run on the headset.
The solution does have its issues, a powerful PC and Wi-Fi network is needed and although the latency is more stable than the unofficial Meta solutions it can be noticed by the trained eye. However, in the correct circumstances the streaming on the Pico Neo 3 and Pico Neo3 Link can be more than ideal.
In terms of content, the consumer focused Quest 2 has a far larger library of content to choose from. The Neo 3 Pro only has access to a limited part of the Pico Store.
The Pico Neo 3 remains focused on the enterprise market, so applications such as Beat Saber, although fun, are irrelevant to many business clients.
Both headsets are easy to set up, both with clear instructions and steps to follow. One added benefit of Meta is that the setup can be done using the Meta companion app, because it is consumer focused it is clear to see how thorough they have been in perfecting the setup process.
Meta has two major drawbacks in its setup. The first issue is that to use the Meta VR-Headset you need to log in with a Facebook-account. For business users this can be a huge problem because you need unique accounts for every single Quest 2. This is also an issue a lot of people don’t like because Facebook is collecting and sharing the users data while using the Meta device.
The second drawback is that on the first time setup the Meta headset will automatically do firmware updates, this means that you may have to wait an extended period of time before being able to use the device.
With the Pico Neo 3 Pro, users are able to follow the set up procedure and get into the device directly without making an account. If users would like to create an account this can be done during setup or at a later period, the same can be done for the firmware updates.
The Meta Quest 2 is available in two versions with either 64 or 256 GB of internal storage. The first variant costs 349 euros, the second variant 449 euros. Some businesses may opt for the business version of the Meta Quest 2, to remove the need for a Facebook account; however, this comes at a hefty price of 799 dollars and a recurring fee every year.
The Pico Neo 3 costs 599 Euros. This makes the Pico Neo 3 Pro more expensive than the Quest 2 without a business license. However, for organisations who need to get around the issue of Facebook accounts, the Pico is significantly better priced.
Meta and Pico have developed two impressive products, both of which perform superbly in many different areas. The headsets both have very similar designs, controllers and share similar performance specifications.
The Meta Quest 2 still leads the way in terms of its tracking precision, controller accuracy and the content available on the device.
The Pico Neo 3 provides better streaming capabilities, a more comfortable design and more immersive VR experience due to its wider field of view.
What tips the scales in the Pico Neo 3 Pro’s direction over the Quest 2 is the need for a Facebook account unless using the Enterprise Version, where an Meta Business license is still needed. For Enterprise usage this is a major red flag and hampers the Quest 2’s ability to be easily accessible to the enterprise market.
The Pico Neo 3 is therefore the better VR headset for business use compared to the Quest 2.