For personal tinkering, that's great (as long as you don't mind running on Windows, which is no longer the case with most web developers these days).
However, if you work for any reasonably established company, then it is illegal for you to use that Community Edition for company work. Your company must purchase a license for you, and that starts at $600 for the licensed equivalent of Community.
Perhaps that's perfectly fair. However, it's a huge bit of friction for a developer trying to introduce C# into their shop for the first time.
In the past, I've been able to lobby Java-based employers to let me write some internal apps in Scala. I've been successful in introducing a Golang web service. In both situations, I was asking a manager to take a chance on some unfamiliar tech, and on the risk that it would be hard to maintain if I left the company. However, and this is key... I was NOT asking them to approve any budget. So I won!
If I have to convince a manager to take some risks, AND to approve budget for $600 per seat, then forget it. I'll just wait a couple of years and see if Visual Studio Code gets open-sourced and turns into a sufficient VS replacement. If it doesn't, then .NET will continue to be something I tinker with in my personal time for hobby projects only (at most).
The bottom line is that pricing for .NET developer tools is ABSURDLY out of line with typical pricing for other dominant platforms today (i.e. Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc). Shops that are all-in on Microsoft across the board are just used to that, but it makes .NET completely non-competitive for potential new users outside that bubble.
It's the 21st-century now. You make your money in production (i.e. cloud platforms, proprietary app servers, support services, etc). Trying to make a buck off developer tools is daft. Developers have too many options to choose from these days, you'll just bleed mindshare like that.