You raise some valid points. I only do photo editing, no gaming at all. My laptop has both NVME and SATA SSD. Buzzing through thousands of photos, with file sizes up to 40MB, I can clearly see the advantage of NVME. That's why I want the desktop that I'm building to have two fast M.2 slots. I only use the network to do backups to my NAS, so that's not as critical.
Have you actually monitored disk usage and peak speeds during your editing workflows? I never see any significant disk usage speeds working in PS, not nearly to the point where 3.0 x2 or x4 would make a difference.
My .NEFs out of my camera are generally 30-35MB in size, and each of the resulting .PSDs anywhere between 50MB and 300MB. Regardless of whether PS 2019 is configured to use 5GB, 20GB, or 50GB of disk cache, I've not seen any measurable difference between having PS installed and files working in my SATA or NVMe on my main 3700X.
What does make a difference, however, is the actual other hardware in the system, in particular if I'm doing work on my 4790K or 3700X. The difference there is usually minor and mostly limited to startup and .NEF opening times, but certainly more noticeable than the SATA vs. NVMe difference when it comes to file saving. As long as you have a relatively recent and large (500GB-1TB) TLC SATA drive with DRAM and not an ancient X-25M, for example.
Obviously, this depends on what software you use, but Adobe software tends to lean on the CPU more. It does like GPU acceleration, however.