This is likely correlated with the absurd sales Bioshock Infinite received after release. (Down from $60 to $20 less than 6 months after release). They probably needed money.
I think every game does that these days. There usually are fairly official numbers for sales of video games as it is a highly mature market. What are the real sales numbers?
Here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_Infinite#Sales
I suspect they budget was insanely high for the game though, so they needed not just a blockbuster, but a massive one.
Bioshock dropped pretty quick, IIRC. I remember picking it up on special during the Steam Summer Sale for $19.99. It was less than six months after release.
However, I got Battlefield 4 for $20 in less than a month after release, so it's possible that's the new norm.
/Sidenote On the PS3, it wasn't worth the bandwidth it took to download. The shoddy textures they used for the console version made it look half a step removed from a late gen PS 2 game. The gameplay and the recycled story didn't help either. It felt like they just took extra character models and levels from the previous BioShock games development, reskinned them and sold it to us it back to us with a plot that consisted of cross out the names of characters and places and writing in new ones.
I hope they do better in the future, but playing that game has dispositioned me to thinking it may not be a bad time to shut down and start over: they need some new ideas.
Half Life 1, which was a huge blockbuster in 1998 took a year to sell 1/4 the number of coppies BioShock Infinite sold in 5 months.
I'm just impressed that premier games have kept prices so high, as the price of most data products becomes so low. 'Social' games are comodity, but blockbusters are not.
Developers can make a 'social' game with some 2D art, but blockbusters actually require the input of hundreds of people.