I'm not sure I'd agree that incandescent bulbs are 10x the former price. However, you may be thinking of the Edison style bulbs that are trendy now. One of these bulbs does cost as much as the multi-packs[2]. They also have these in LED style for even higher prices.
[0]:https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sylvania-25-Watt-Double-Life-B10... [1]:https://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoSmart-40-Watt-Equivalent-B11-... [2]:https://www.homedepot.com/p/Globe-Electric-60-Watt-Incandesc...
Say you have one light bulb running three hours per day (living room, kitchen or office in the evening seems realistic). It uses 20 W more than the LED and using $0.15 per kWh (average rate in California) this gives
20 W* 3h * $0.15/(1000 Wh) * 365 = $3.29 every year
If you regularly use two incandescent bulbs the "more expensive package" paid for itself within a year and gives you brighter light at the same time.
I really think the price/wattage comparison thing needs to be the entire packaging design. I overheard a sales person helping a shopper choosing a generator size by adding up the wattage of all of the devices needed including lights. I turned into the conversation to politely suggest using LEDs for lighting because of the lower wattage requirements. Both the sales person and the shopper were shocked at the difference.
Um, what? They're still all over the place... the supermarket next to my apartment carries incandescent bulbs, as does the city's Home Depot.