I disagree that just because Q is in the movie that gadgets must follow. If that is the direction that the script follows then yes that will be the case but if they continue to follow the tone and direction of the previous two films then I would hazard a guess that gadgets will be minimal at best.
I don't understand why people talk about "minimal" gadgets. The Daniel Craig era has been loaded with gadgets - look at the anti-poison kit in the car, the tracking device, all the magic stuff Bond is able to do with his cellphone, the futuristic table-top at MI6 in Quantum of Solace.
The only difference is that many of the gadgets seen in the Craig films are things that likely exist in real life, or are plausible. (Sort of like how real life has caught up with Star Trek's futuristic communicators and tricorders.) So, OK, I don't expect us to see an invisible car anytime soon, but I've noted no lack of gadgets in the Craig era. All that's missing is a guy codenamed Q explaining how to use them - since odds are James Bond in 2006 was quite capable of figuring out how to use a smartphone.
But in Casino Royale certainly I saw at least 2 characters who could have easily been Q: the guy who injects Bond with the tracker in the Bahamas, and the guy who talks Bond through the antidote process.
Odds are if we see Q again he's going to be more like the "Quartermaster" his code name represents, i.e. helping Bond train with his weaponry, making sure the Walther is clean, etc.