As opposed to just not having to pay for creator rights if they simply stick with the comic? But let's not get into that whole argument again so as to avoid the general unpleasantness it typically brings in its wake, eh?
Exquisite artwork for sure.
And covers? If so, then presumably a deliberate decision not to recreate the inventiveness of the 'human free' extreme close-ups that form the very opening panel of each issue, then?
Which leads me to wonder just how, well, 'Watchmenny' these spin-offs are likely to be?
Undoubtedly, there'll be artists who replicate and augment Gibbons's character designs and writers who capitalise upon the seeds of story ideas sown by Moore over a quarter of a century ago, but what about all of those other integral facets that create the overall WATCHMEN experience, i.e. recurring symbolism, and thematic and visual symmetry; historical, classical, literary and pop culture quotes and references; use of metafictional devices à la TOTBF; supplementary prose and facsimile documents; a nine-panel grid structure and absence of 'sound effects' and motion lines...?
In fact, all the things originally designed to showcase the unique qualities of the comics medium and to highlight its particular strengths, to create something that demands repeat readings to locate and absorb all of the content carefully placed within.
Something deliberately constructed to be "not some other comic book" (Gibbons)... a comic about comics.