AR gaming sits at a point where spatial computing, real-time rendering, and player psychology converge. Jandurvek works through that intersection with people who want to understand it from the inside — not just consume it.
See the programMost AR education splits into two camps: theoretical courses that never touch a game engine, or tutorials that show you what buttons to press without explaining why. Neither builds real understanding of why AR behaves differently in gaming contexts than in, say, industrial applications.
At Jandurvek, sessions are built around problems that don't have obvious answers — marker-based vs. markerless tracking tradeoffs, occlusion handling in fast-moving environments, latency compensation when the player's body is part of the interface. You work through those problems with an instructor and, depending on your path, alongside a small group facing the same questions from different angles.
The group format isn't there to fill seats. It exists because AR gaming problems benefit from multiple perspectives — a person coming from mobile development sees the same rendering challenge differently than someone from game design. That friction produces insight that solo study rarely generates.
The experience isn't linear in the way a course syllabus suggests. It shifts texture as your confidence changes.
AR gaming combines disciplines that don't usually sit together — computer vision, game physics, UX for embodied interaction. The first sessions are deliberately uncomfortable. You're not expected to have answers yet; you're expected to notice which questions feel important to you.
By the middle stretch, you've built enough vocabulary to disagree with your instructor — which is when things get useful. You'll spend time on specific implementation challenges: depth estimation in outdoor environments, player fatigue from extended AR sessions, how different engines handle world anchoring.
The program closes with a project you define. It doesn't need to be finished — it needs to be honest. You're documenting your thinking, your technical decisions, and where the gaps still are. That record is more useful than a completed prototype you don't fully understand.
Cohorts of four to eight people working through the same problem set. Sessions run twice weekly, each around 90 minutes. Group size is kept small enough that you're not invisible — your questions shape the session, not just the agenda.
Full program detailsOne-to-one sessions with an instructor, scheduled around your availability. The curriculum is shaped entirely by your background — what you already know determines what gets skipped, what gets extended, and what gets approached differently.
Full program detailsThe program isn't selective in the gatekeeping sense — there's no entrance test. But certain conditions make it productive, and it's worth being honest about them before you commit time and money.
You don't need a game development background. Several participants have come from architecture, interactive media, or mobile app development and found the AR fundamentals transferred directly. What matters more is comfort with ambiguity — AR gaming is a field where the best practices are still being argued over, and sessions reflect that.
You do need to be able to set aside roughly six to eight hours per week. That includes session time, reading, and the kind of loose thinking that happens between sessions. People who treat it as a passive course — something to watch and absorb — tend to get less from it than those who come with specific frustrations they want to work through.
Not benchmarks or targets — just the shape of what's been built since 2016 and where it stands now.
The group format surprised me. I expected to be lost among people with deeper technical backgrounds, but the mix of perspectives made the sessions sharper, not harder to follow.
I'd been reading about AR for two years before this. The individual path got me past the conceptual layer into actual implementation decisions within the first month.