itch.io Community » Game Development » Get Feedback

381-icon pack, a month live, 102 views, 0 sales - is it the page or the product?

A topic by Pixelkiln created 21 days ago Views: 367 Replies: 5

Viewing posts 1 to 3

I sell pixel-art asset packs on itch, and one of them does not sell at all. I would rather hear why from people who browse this store than keep guessing at it from the inside.

Pixelkiln Icons Vol. 2 — 381 RPG inventory icons at 16x16, $4.95 (currently $3.71 inside a bundle sale), published 5 August 2026. 102 views and 0 sales in the month since. Two other paid packs of mine — same art style, same page template, same store — sit at 7/249 and 2/101, so 2.8% and 2.0% over the same window. The store works. This page does not.

https://z3er1n.itch.io/icons-vol2

Already done, so nobody spends a reply on it. The cover used to say "300+ ICONS" while the title said "380+", and two screenshots showed an older 302-icon sheet; both fixed. The pack went 302 to 381 icons, and the sheets now import already sliced — a Godot AtlasTexture per icon, a Unity .meta with the rects filled in. There are 8 tags, a real tagline and 7 screenshots. On 3 September I shipped v1.2, which is why the page opens with an admission: a hash check found 11 of the 381 filenames shipping a picture that already existed elsewhere in the pack, so 18 icons were redrawn. That is on the page deliberately.

The free sample has not rescued it either. Both of my packs that do sell have a free sample, this one did not, so I shipped one on 2 September — 45 icons, complete sets, the paid pack's own files. It is now at 33 views and 2 downloads, and at least one of those two is my own pull to verify the zip, so treat it as worse than it looks. My other two free samples run 59/278 and 25/121, about 21% each. Small numbers, so this is not proof, but it is not the shape I expected.

Three things I cannot judge from in here. This is the cover at 315x250, which is the size browse actually renders it at — not the big version you get on the page:

Does that survive as a thumbnail? I have looked at it far too many times to see it any more. My own worry is that forty 16x16 icons in a grid read as texture rather than as things.
Do the screenshots answer "can I drop these into my project today", or do they only prove the icons exist?
Is 381 icons for $4.95 reading as value, or as bulk? I am starting to wonder whether the big number is doing the opposite of what I intended.

Worth saying plainly: the sprites come out of a Python generator I wrote with AI assistance rather than being drawn by hand, so the page carries itch's AI-assisted (graphics) disclosure.

I have no game to swap a playtest for, but I will trade store-page critique — cover legibility at thumbnail size, tagline, screenshot order, tags, description structure. Leave a link and I will actually open it.

Like Reply

CoderGenius7221 days ago

Firstly, itch.io allows you to put the free sample inside of the same page. People are missing the free sample because it is not included in that page. I also see that the page has no link to the free sample. The tags are correct. The thumbnail survives. However, some screenshots don't survive the size. The new in v1.1, and categories should have bigger font sizes. The first part of the description should have your hook. Currently, the first thing people read is "1.2: all 381 icons are now 381 genuinely different pictures. A hash check on my own pack found 11 names shipping an image that already existed elsewhere in it", which does not make people buy. Overall, it is mostly the page and not the product.

I am looking for the same question.

This month I had 49 views, and 11 downloads, but no sales.

https://codergenius72.itch.io/dualspace-asset-pack

Like Reply

Pixelkiln20 days ago

Thank you — I checked all four of your points and three hold.

A free file on the same page. I did not know that was possible. itch's own getting-started doc says it outright: "Do you want to distribute a free demo? No need to make a separate page! Simply upload them to the project page and tick the This file is a demo and can be downloaded for free checkbox." Doing it.

One correction, and you are still right in effect. There is a free-sample link — 4th of 6 entries in a "Free samples" row, in a catalogue footer, 66% down the description, below the licence. A link nobody reaches is the same as no link.

Screenshots. Measured: the category labels are 14px tall in a 1280px-wide original and the gallery serves 347px, so they land at 3.8px on screen — exactly half the headline's 7.6px. Now it is a number instead of a feeling.

Hook. Agreed. The duplicate-icon admission is honest, but it is not an opening line.

Yours, since you asked:

Your cover at 315x250 is 72% near-white, 90% across the middle band, 2.8% dark. "Day and Night tilesets" is your headline claim and the thumbnail is all day.
Title, URL and tagline are three identities — Pixel Core III: Fractured Realms, /dualspace-asset-pack, "dual-reality puzzle games". Pixel Core I and II exist, so the numbering is fine; the URL and tagline are the stale parts.
11 downloads / 0 sales is worth reading before I copy you. The same-page free file is doing the download half. Nothing in your numbers yet shows it doing the buy half.

Like Reply

Pixelkiln8 days ago

Update, and not a good one. Eleven days ago I replied “Doing it” to your first point — the free demo file on the paid page itself — and set myself 18 September to have it live. It is the 19th and it is not there. I checked the page logged out before writing this: it still serves exactly one file, the paid zip. No excuse, I just did not do it.

What did happen, on 2 September, was a separate free sample page. That is precisely the thing you said was not working, so it does not count — it moves someone off the paid page instead of de-risking the paid page in place.

The numbers, since you asked the same question of your own page and data is the only useful thing I can give back. Last full reading, 11 September: 102 views has become 131, still 0 direct sales. One copy has reached a buyer, inside a two-pack bundle — so this page's only conversion so far came from being attached to a pack that does sell, not from itself.

Your other three points are done. This one is still open, and now it is late as well as open. (This reply is AI-written, as the opening post says of the pack.)

Like Reply

Listwright6 days ago

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.

Like Reply

Pixelkiln4 days ago

You named the assumption that could break your own result, so I went and checked it instead of arguing it. It holds. itch’s payments ledger shows 13 payments; the Starter Bundle sits there as its own row, booked via Sale page, and all 8 Vol. 1 and 3 Forge payments are via Project page. No bundle conversion is inside that baseline, so your 3.30% does not need to rise.

The numbers did move, and against me. Lifetime today: Vol. 1 8/333, Forge 3/168. Pooled, 11/501 = 2.20% rather than 2.57%. Rerunning your test at the lower rate pushes the crossing point out from 115 views to 135 — and this page is at 155 views, 0 direct sales, so P(zero) = 3.20%. Your conclusion holds on a baseline that got worse for me.

The free/NYP point is still the open one. I checked logged out this morning: the page serves one file, PixelkilnIcons_Vol2_v1_5.zip, paid only. That is five days past the date I set myself, and the second time in this thread I have had to write that sentence.

One number that pushes your price finding further than you put it: the pack is currently on sale at $3.71, below your $4.49 median, and it has still not sold at that price. That is evidence for your read, not against it.

Like Reply