The power of the cloud is going to be forever limited by the slow internet speeds. Graphics cards have data transfer rates much faster than even the fastest internet speeds available. The only thing the cloud will be good for is streaming or archived data. It could do minor calculations as well, but what's the point when a graphics card can do those calculations using a fraction of 1% of its power.

Bandwidth isn't the determining factor of gauging the performance of a system.
Some tasks simply are NOT bandwidth sensitive or latency sensitive, tasks such as those are perfect for the cloud, especially tasks that are serial heavy.

With that in mind, the Cloud is also not exclusive to the Xbox one, in theory even the Sega Dreamcast could use it.

well u normaly have a lot more ram and a better gpu in your pc... like 32 gb ram + 4gb

I voted Yo Momma because we are still in the infancy of this generation & the Azure cloud servers are still improving. So even though I am 80% sure that cloud compute is a talking point in this day and age, it still has time to mature and provide some type of enhancements to connected games. Anything can happen, Microsoft isn't full of idiots.

The Atomic Bomb was nothing more than a hypothesis turned theory turned fact within a relatively short time. Scientists didn't even know or agree about the power of the explosion. But when it was used and didn't destroy the Earth's atmosphere many found it unwise to be so hasty to dismiss what seemed impossible. So i think it is better to keep your mind open when it comes to the Odd, Wacky, and Revolutionary ideas/creations of the future. And yeah I know we were supposed to have H.A.Ls by now.

Lmao!  That would be great if MS did make a Cloud commercial like the Sega one. 

@ OP

Yea, pretty much.  Not everyone has a stable internet or internet, at all, so those people would be screwed if MS tried forcing the cloud in single-player games.  And really, the things MS has boasted about using the cloud for could have easily been done on local HW with little cost to resources.  Poor AI for cannon fodder in Titanfall and a "cloudvatar" in Forza 5 (something even some SNES racing games have had.)  When we get to a point where the vast majority of gamers do have great internet, we'll be so far ahead HW-wise, it will still be MUCH easier to program these things using local HW, so devs don't have to worry about how well some people's connections are and what will the game do if the internet crashes.

Short answer? Absolutely.

Don't really know what you are getting at. RAM doesn't make a game run faster and neither does the CPU if the GPU is limiting.

I'm talking about commercial pre-built gaming PCs. If you look at the spec sheets they will always emphasize the number of CPU cores, the clockrate, the RAM of the GPU while completely hiding the model of the GPU because it's usually crap. MS perpetuates this crap by pretending that additional CPU power will make the games un faster.

Mostly correct.

RAM does no form of accelleration or processing, it's sole purpose is to store/cache data so that the processors that do the processing can retreive the data faster.
You can have 87347Ghz of GDDR98 Ram on a 2048bit bus, but if the processors are only Xbox 360 class, then that bandwidth goes completely to waste, converesly, if the memory isn't fast enough to keep up, then the processors idle and thus do nothing, thus you need a "balance".

As for OEM built PC's, Microsoft *really* has no say in what specifications are listed, that's completely up to the OEM's, the main issue is Intel invests billions of dollars in advertising it's processors, so it's easier for consumers to identify with a Core i7 processor than it is for a consumer to identify with a Radeon R9 290X with 4Gb GDDR5 and thus by extension OEM's advertise their systems to suit to shift more units on the back of Intels advertising.

Personally, I have 64Gb of Ram, Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz and four Radeon R9 290's all under water.
For gaming, the 64Gb of ram is useless, my system would NOT be any slower in gaming-only scenario's if I had only a pitifull 8Gb of Ram, I would probably only notice a little more swapfile usage if I had only 4Gb in very demanding games like Battlefield 4. (With that in mind my Core 2 system handles Battlefield 4 with only 3Gb of ram with high-settings, which is PS4 equivalent, OS probably takes 1Gb.)

All the CPU and RAM in the worl won't help if the shaders are overworked. That's what I meant.

I never said that MS is responsible for these "gaming PCs". Just that they are helping to keep the average consumer dumb.