I see the whole problem with people raging not as a fault with the game or the players (though it might be for some), but a problem with expectations differing from the brutal realtiy of the game, and therefore requiring proper introduction.
Most players come from a modern RPG background, and have expectations based on what they played. They are conditioned to expect easy popamole shit. When faced with a hard game, with something unusual, their typical reaction is to fault that strange and unconventionnal thing. It's human nature to attack what is not immediately familiar to us. I think the game should acknowledge that, and not immediately reject those players like those players reject the game. After all, you're the one trying to sell, and with an unusual game, you have to create the market for it. To do that properly you need to educate the new players to a different / classic way of playing.
Now how do you that? Not by dumbing down obviously, and warnings are clearly not enough. I'd do an introduction / turorial to the game, not specifically to the mechanics, but to the tone, difficulty, and the world logic, before it stabs you in the back and the player just wants to throw the game away. Show how the characters and situations in the game are scheming and unforgiving, how you don't always succeed at what you want, how brutal the combat is and how it should be avoided. Have the player die and start again against a simple combat encounter, and educate him to look at strategies (show him a couple he can try) instead of rage-quitting. Simply put, teach them they have to use their brains and put a little effort to advance in the game. Because all the other games teach the opposite, not because your game is not for those players.
Also let's not shit on transparency. It's not hard and in no way dumbing down to put a line under a Background's description saying "Commonly used skills:..." Or to specify in which situations a skill is useful in the skill description. Because other games use them differently, or simply do not have those skills at all. Having clear and transparent rules of interaction between the player and the game in no way diminishes the quality of the interaction, quite the opposite.
Also, by teaching the players what to expect of your game, you therefore set the criteria on which it should be judged. People will reject the game by saying "It's not for me" rather than "It's shit". And game "journalists" will hopefully take it into account. In a game with a lot of failure, you what the players to be frustrated at their loss as a motivation to try again, rather than at the game, leading to ragequit. And this is sometimes only a question of perspective, which you have to set.
My point is selling a game to the current market is hard mode, and if you just fault the players, then you're just doing what they're doing to your game. You've just ragequit in the face of a steep acceptance curve. Don't. I want this game to succeed. Sure, it's not for everyone, but some of those quitters could've been made adopters.
people seem to underestimate fallout 1&2.
something similar in bloodlines with malkavians, but thats it.
