Nike is simply robbing people right about now, it is as simple as that. They’ve jacked up prices on inferior product, shoes that do not maintain their integrity under pressure. Durant’s line had been the opposite, as the One, Two and Three were built to take punishment. However the IV featured cheaper materials than the aforementioned shoes, and they raised the price on that one, with this new pair going a bit higher. If you are going to raise prices, could you at least give the consumer a product high in quality? If they are going to raise the prices on LeBron’s line, up toward three hundred dollars, shouldn’t that shoe at least resemble a luxury product, lasting like a high priced item should last, without the damned stripe peeling off at minimal contact?

There’d be nothing wrong with a high priced shoe, if it were made with high quality materials, leather worth the price, especially when it is put at the same price point as a luxury dress shoe.

Now Jon Register, I know that you are here, as you made the same idiotic comments both here and on SC, the one comparing sneakers to cars. It’s a dumb assed analogy. So when I owned you in debate, you had the comments deleted, of which weren’t disrespectful in any way, then you had me banned.

It says a whole lot about you, and what it says most, very loudly, is that you are one pathetic little man.

Perhaps wearing expensive Nike shoes is the only thing that makes you feel any self worth.

Good luck with that.

i really don’t get the ideology behind these, it’s a complete step in the opposite direction from everything they did with iii’s and ‘s iv. the 4′s were low, tight in the forefoot, and zoom. i guess my thoughts on it would be if the kobe VIII’s were as high as the kb3′s had a full length air bag and a strap, wouldn’t that be weird? that’s what i feel about the kd change, i guess i just don’t get it.

Price hikes are not normal when the endorser requests to keep his shoes affordable. The only reason Nike increased the prices on Durant’s shoe, is due to his popularity. This has nothing to do with materials, it has everything to do with opportunistic greed. Nike knows that with these dumb assed sneakerheads, they have a core audience that thinks that the more a Nike shoe costs, the more important it must be, even if the quality and materials used are wack.

Nike has those fools paying upward to three hundred dollars for shoes made from the same materials, that were once considered fodder twenty years ago. Take any one of Nike’s top tier sig hoops shoes, then compare the quality and materials to that of the Pay Less brand.

If you are honest with yourself, you’ll see that there is minimal difference.

I’m not mad at Nike, but I find it comical as all hell as to what they are able to pull off on such gullible folk.

You see, I come from a time when there was a discernible difference between what would be called a budget sneaker, and then one that would be considered high end. It would mean that the quality of materials, in this case leather, would be more durable, then as a whole, a more complete shoe. Leathers meant high quality, and for two hundred fifty dollars, Nike could at least make an attempt to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in that regard. However, no matter how you slice it, plastic is plastic. You can call it flywire, hyperfuse, or whatever, it’s still plastic, then not worth the price they are pushing.

No disrespect, but perhaps you are right. Mine may be a false point of view, because at least Pay Less would figure out a way to keep their branding together, preventing their logo from peeling off of their highest priced “Elite” shoes.

I’m not going to argue for the price point, cuz I think it sucks too, but I definitely think it will be good for the competition since consumers will obviously be turned off by the steep price and look to find a similar product for less…but seriously, just because the paint chips, it doesn’t mean that it’s a Payless shoe. It goes through wear and tear, and sometimes the aesthetic can’t keep up with the performance. Give me any product that’s used on a regular basis, and give me that one that doesn’t get scratched, scuffed or dinged through normal use. iPhones get scratched and chipped, Rolexes get dents and scrapes and ferraris get dented and their paint jobs get chipped…in short, nothing will stay perfect forever, regardless of how much you pay for it. Yes, the paint chips, but does it harm the performance of the shoe? It’s a basketball shoe that warps in ridiculous ways. Maybe the choice of material was wrong for the swoosh, but to say that a cosmetic flaw suddenly makes is the same as a Payless shoe is a bit drastic, don’t you think?

If I had to explain how Payless leather is stiffer, their midsoles bottom out faster, their rubber outsoles are slippery and provide poor traction, their construction causes chaffing at flex points, their overall fit is poor, their cushioning is 30 years old…then I’d say you’ve either got feet so numb that you can’t feel the difference, you’ve never tried on a pair of Payless shoes, or that you’re just exaggerating to try and make a point.

Yes, their pricing sucks, and I agree that they made a poor choice with the metallic paint, but seriously, no ones making anyone buy the shoes. Have faith that people know that $300 is too much for a sneaker and trust that we’ll opt for a cheaper sneaker. Competition only makes everyone better.

What to see some serious hypocrisy in action, read this thread on SC.

http://solecollector.com/news/nike-be-true-pride-pack-/

They allow this, discriminatory comments against race, gender and sexuality, but having a debate with one of their Mods about Nike and their quality, is not accepted.

I am posting the link to this thread on many sites, not just here.

Just read the review over “there” of the Hyperdunk Elite. Wow. Most perfect shoe ever. I honestly am intrigued now. Not that I will buy a pair for anywhere near retail, but comparing myself to the “other” site’s reviews I have to know.

Mede, absolutely agree that swoosh should stay intact at least through the first game. First month regardless of level of play. Imagine if that Swoosh ripped off during a Finals game and Lebron gets a fast break with no Swoosh in the picture – then see if the next version stays on. I have pairs of shoes I bought in the 90′s I still play in, from various brands, and the comfort and fit was ridiculous compared to now. LEather is a lost art – I understand beef prices going up and the materials cost rising, but I would love to see more shoes like the Bloodline than the Hypers. The fit just does not compare in my book. As for the ripping out, I did the same thing in my 2001 Retro Jordan XI’s about 2 months after I got them. Right through the side. THat was the first time a salesman told me that Jordans aren’t for playing anymore. Almost fell off right there.

Gus – performance reviews aplenty coming soon. I have 8-10 in the books waiting to come through. Hope they satisfy your curiosity.

Mede, to be honest, if Nike had priced the Jordan 2012 around $140, I would say the materials are on point. They suede is good quality (I got the grey/volts) and the sole rubber is thick and sticky (for me). Justifying a $90 increase for 3 insoles and two sleeves makes it out of my range. I think the gimmick of the shoe takes away and skews some of the aesthetics and quality. But I realy don’t want to get off on the Jordan – that review is coming.

However, I would love to hear KD’s thoughts on the price hike. Could we be looking at another CWebb issue in a couple of years?

What’s needed is a completely objective view of performance footwear within the hoops spectrum. I personally am not a sneakerhead, but that segment of sneaker wearers, perhaps hoarders is a more appropriate term, are only about the social significance of the footwear they choose.

Places like Sole Collector feel that Nike is the best, which is an easy decision to make when Nike wields such influence in the community that places like SC assists in the reseller market. Let’s be real, the only reason that other companies aren’t as popular in that regard, lies in the fact that the reseller market is what drives the Nike sneakerhead fan base, not the quality and durability of their product.

That said, hopefully if this site ever gets its forum back up and running, then perhaps people like those who are on this thread, can begin serious and insightful discussions on the pros and cons of all brands, not simply Nike. I know for a fact that Adidas does not mind being criticized, any company that prides itself on being better, would not.

I agree in some ways about the increment in prices and lower quality.. but youd have to have knowledge in nike and sneaker production before raising any voices. first of all this shoe front has all been made with hyperfuse technology, meaning layers of special material bein blended by a fusion machine that gives breathabilty and lightness to it, and airmax unit always brings quality to comfort, and the shoe being high is most probable a petition made by the player. although theyre higher its kinda mid and it resembles more a low shoe fit… last but not least have into account the large tech research done by the company and the huge production change in china to thailand plus the crisis and the problemsof transport and commercialization in each country… i mean nike does make profit and it does win from every shoe, and yes they break and sometimes u expect more fromit,maybe, but it is just moaning or are you well informed?