Your title asks whether it is the page or the product. Your own numbers answer part of that now, and they did not when you wrote it.
Pooling the two packs you gave as controls, 7/249 and 2/101, your house conversion is 9/350, so 2.57%. If this listing converted at your own rate, the chance of seeing zero direct sales is 7.0% at the 102 views in your title, and 3.30% at the 131 views in your 11 September reading. The crossing point is 115 views. You passed it somewhere between the 11th and the 19th, so the question became answerable while the thread sat idle, and the answer is yes: this listing underperforms your own store at the usual 5% threshold. One assumption can break that. I treated 7/249 and 2/101 as direct sales, the same thing as the 0 you are comparing them against. If either of those counts includes a bundle conversion like the one you reported here, the baseline is too high and the 3.30% rises.
The price is not your problem, and I checked instead of guessing. itch.io top-sellers for game-assets under the icons tag, three pages, 108 listings read this morning: 80 carry a price, median 4.49 USD, 65% sit under 5 USD, range 0.60 to 27.99. Your 4.95 lands around the 55th percentile of what is actually selling in your own tag. Dropping it is the one move those numbers argue against.
The same 108 listings do say something else. 28 of them, 25.9%, are free or name-your-price. In the tag you are selling into, a quarter of the best sellers ask for nothing at the door. I opened your page logged out this morning, 21 September, and it still serves one file, the paid zip. So the free-demo-on-the-paid-page item you set yourself for the 18th is the one suggestion in this thread that a top-seller list backs with a number, and it is still the open one.
CoderGenius72, same arithmetic for you, using Pixelkiln's 2.57% only as a reference rate since you have not posted one of your own. Zero sales in 49 views comes out at 27.9%, which means your page has not yet produced an answerable question. Your 11 downloads at 0 sales is the more interesting number, and it points somewhere different from Pixelkiln's case.