I'm sure in EA's ideal universe Obsidian would have gone the way of Troika years ago. They were useful for LucasArts when it needed an alternative RPG developer to Bioware, but to EA they're a competitor from the same tradition of late 90s role-playing games as their internal RPG studio. It's a cramped market hampered by disagreements over RPG lite streamliners and 'hardcore' RPG fans over which method makes for a more desirable game, and Pillars of Eternity may cramp it up some more.
Meeehhhhhhh. . .
It doesn't make much sense to talk about "competitors" when it comes to media like video games. Buying a game is not like buying a toaster or a car. Even if you only have money for one game this month, if there are two shit-hot RPGs coming out, you buy one and then the other. In a field like RPGs, which is a pretty thin nowadays anyway, you're essentially appealing to a niche market. And consumers of niche market media will consume as much of it as they can, provided it appeals to them. There just isn't "brand loyalty" in video games to the point where people will only exclusively buy one studio's games to the exclusion of others, like they would if they only bought Chevys or Toyotas. The only place this kind of "competition" exists is for those big, dumb blockbuster games like CoD and Battlefield, or Madden and Gameday.
Also, the RPG field is nowhere near cramped, in my opinion.