Ethical, cheap, and scalable, purposeful games leverage player entertainment to incentivise contributors in language resourcing. However, discourse is scarce around the enjoyability of these games, whose playerbases are divided between a tiny minority of reliable contributors and a vast majority of inconsistent contributors. This study aims to deepen the discourse around design possibilities tailored to the unevenly contributing playerbases of such games by building on player-reported data to create three engaging personas and narrative scenarios. Using Pruitt and Grudin’s way of weighing feature suitability in persona-focused design, social incentives and majority voting are indicated as the most and least prominent features, respectively. Indeed, the weight of the primary persona, representing 3.5% of the playerbase, is 72%, more than double the combined weight, 56%, of the remaining 96.5% of the playerbase. Sticking to the original definition of purposeful games is essential for any gaming approach to crowdsourced data collection to remain ethical, cheap, and scalable.